THE  GETTY  CENTER  LIBRARY 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 
in  2016  with  funding  from 
Getty  Research  Institute 


https://archive.org/details/vaneyckstheirfolOOconw 


THE  VAN  EYCKS  AND  THEIR  FOLLOWERS 


V 


V 


cumtictiumemiy  ttamut’me^n$ 
nonun^ttteo.ot{»(Utt  o$mmCUut 

^idii^(Ue|)20t^ 


HUBERT  VAN  EYCK  HEURES  DE  MILAN  FOE,  93V 

LIBRARY  OF  PRINCE  TRIVULZIO  . MILAN 
ionuynf  ( f)fJJiC,rpi>-  “■ 


THE  VAN  EYCKS  AND 
THEIR  FOLLOWERS 


BY  SIR  MARTIN  CONWAY,  M.P. 

FORMERLY  ROSCOE  PROFESSOR  OF  ART  AT  LIVERPOOL  AND 
SLADE  PROFESSOR  OP  ART  AT  CAMBRIDGE 

N- 


NEW  YORK 

E.  P.  DUTTON  AND  COMPANY 

1921 


ThC  J.  PAOl  GFTTV  MUSEUM 

LIBRARY 


PREFACE 


This  book,  which  now  finally  passes  out  of  my  hands,  has  not  taken 
its  intended  form  owing  to  the  cireumstanees  of  the  day.  The 
text  was  written  to  accompany  a much  larger  series  of  illustrations 
than  it  is  now  economieally  possible  to  issue  at  a priee  which  the 
contemplated  reader  would  be  willing  to  pay.  When  the  repro- 
duction of  a picture  is  under  the  eyes  of  a reader  description  is 
superfluous,  nor  is  it  neeessary  to  indicate  at  length  points  of  re- 
semblance between  two  works  of  art  when  photographs  of  them  ean 
be  direetly  composed.  Laek  of  intended  illustration  may  render 
a few  passages  somewhat  obseure.  Such  illustrations  as  we  are 
enabled  to  supply  have  been  chosen  carefully.  Well-known 
pietures  have  seldom  been  seleeted  for  reproduetion.  Works 
difficult  of  access  have  been  preferred  to  the  well-known  works  of 
the  famous. 

It  is  to  be  regretted  that  the  present  ownership  of  many  of  the 
pictures  cited  is  not  recorded.  Collections  are  constantly  being 
dispersed  at  auction.  A continual  stream  of  works  of  art  erosses  the 
Atlantic  and  each  finds  some  new  home,  known  only  to  dealers 
and  American  art-lovers.  It  is  thus  not  possible,  at  any  rate  for 
me,  to  indicate  the  whereabouts  of  a considerable  proportion  of 
the  pictures  whieh  I have  studied  in  loan-exhibitions  or  in  their  old 
homes  on  this  side  of  the  oeean. 

One  last  word  of  thanks  and  remembrance  may  be  added.  The 
domain  of  art  and  of  the  lovers  of  art  should  be  a kindly  and  a 
generous  provinee.  The  love  of  any  special  kind  of  art  forms  a 
pleasant  link  between  its  lovers.  Study  of  the  pietures  dealt  with  in 
this  volume  has  brought  me  many  friends,  most  of  them  far  more 


vi 


PREFACE 


gifted  and  informed  than  is  the  present  writer.  It  is  of  them  I 
am  thinking  while  writing  these  words.  To  each  I send  a saluta- 
tion. When  they  read  this  book  they  may  perhaps  here  and  there 
recognize  a personal  message,  always  intended  to  be  a kind  one. 
To  how  many  of  them  I owe  hearty  thanks  for  what  they  have 
taught  me ! 

But  most  of  all  do  I owe  recognition  and  regard  to  one  who  has 
been  by  my  side  throughout  all  the  years  of  my  labours,  and  has 
shared  with  me  their  pleasures,  their  anxieties,  and  their  toil. 
Together  we  have  loved  the  art  of  the  past.  Together  we  have 
learned  to  open  our  hearts  ever  more  widely  to  its  beauties.  In 
this  atmosphere  of  sympathy,  and  largely  because  of  it,  I have  been 
able  to  accomplish  whatever  of  good  there  may  be  in  this  and  other 
works  that  have  come  from  my  hand.  Therefore  to  my  wife,  as 
in  duty  and  affection  bound,  I dedicate  this  book. 


Allington  Castle,  near  Maidstone. 
September  16,  1921. 


Martin  Conway. 


CONTENTS 

PAGE 

Preface  v 

Introduction  ........  xv 


CHAPTER  I 

THE  GOTHIC  AGE 

Its  character — A portal  at  Chartres — The  primacy  of  architecture — The  Mystics — The  Cologne 
painters — Paradise  pictures  . . . . . . • i • • • PP-  1-14 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  FOUR  DUKES 

The  Duke  of  Berry — Jacques  Bandol — The  Paremont  deNarbonne — Jacquemart  de  Hesdin 
— The  style  of  Jacquemart — Jean  Malouel  and  others — Melchior  Broederlam — Claas  Sluter — 
The  Puits  de  Moise  ............  pp.  15-34 


CHAPTER  III 

THE  HOURS  OF  CHANTILLY 

The  de  Limbourg  brothers — The  Paris  landscapes — Jacques  Coene  . . . pp.  35-41 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE  HOURS  OF  TURIN 

The  Hours  of  Milan — The  Duke  of  Bavaria’s  landscapes — Hubert  van  Eyck — Hubert’s 
assistants — The  fate  of  the  manuscript  ........  . pp.  42-51 


CHAPTER  V 

HUBERT  VAN  EYCK 

An  innovator  in  technique — The  Adoration  of  the  Lamb — Hubert’s  pictures — The  Richmond 
Three  Maries — Hubert’s  character ..........  pp.  52-63 


CHAPTER  VI 

JOHN  VAN  EYCK 

The  Adam  and  Eve — His  portraits — His  Madoimas — Lost  pictures — His  last  work.  pp.  64-73 

CHAPTER  VII 

THE  COURT 

Mediseval  manners — A court  etiquette-book — The  Duke’s  dinner-table — A ducal  bedchamber 
— A court-painter  ............  pp.  74-84 

vii 


CONTENTS 


viii 


CHAPTER  VIII 

THE  GUILD  SYSTEM 

Belfreys — Confraternities — An  artist’s  education — ^Festal  occasions — A fete  at  Antwerp — 
Its  effect  on  art  ............  pp.  85-100 


CHAPTER  IX 

PETER  CHRISTUS 

Court-artists — Events  of  his  life — His  paintings — The  goldsmith’s  shop  . pp.  101-110 

CHAPTER  X 

ROBERT  CAMPIN  AND  JACQUES  DARET 

The  influence  of  Dijon — Conventional  angels — Systematic  borrowing — ^The  Merode  Annun- 
ciation— The  FMmalle  panels — The  Werl  wings— Hulin’s  discovery — Daret’slife  . pp.  111-128 


CHAPTER  XI 

ROGER  VAN  DER  WEYDEN 

The  Descent  from  the  Cross — Methods  of  portraiture — ^Works  of  his  early  period — The  Seven 
Sacraments — Mediaeval  symbolism — His  refinement — ^His  visit  to  Italy — Zanetto  Bugatto — The 
Middelburg  altar-piece — His  portraits — ^His  imitators — His  death — ^The  St.  Hubert  Master — 
Roger’s  followers  . . . . . . . . , . . pp.  129-157 


CHAPTER  XII 

DIRK  BOUTS 

Born  at  Haarlem — ^His  artistic  origin — Influenced  by  Roger — Settled  at  Louvain — His  half- 
length  Madonnas — His  mature  work — ^The  Last  Supper  . . . . . pp.  158-172 


CHAPTER  XIII 

HUGO  VAN  DER  GOES 

His  early  works — Paintings  on  linen — ^The  Holyrood  wings — ^The  death  of  the  Virgin — The 
Portinari  triptych — His  convent  life — The  Maitre  de  Moulins — Ghent  painters — ^The  Master  of 
St.  Giles pp.  173-192 


CHAPTER  XIV 

JUSTUS  OF  GHENT 

At  Ghent — At  Urbino — ^The  seven  arts — His  portraits  . . . . pp.  193-200 

CHAPTER  XV 

SOME  DUTCHMEN 

Albert  van  Ouwater — Mediaeval  gardens — The  Delft  Virgo  Master  . . pp.  201-213 

CHAPTER  XVI 

GEERTGEN  VAN  SINT  JANS 

His  early  pictures — Extended  landscape — His  rapid  progress — His  followers  . pp.  214-221 


CONTENTS 


IX 


CHAPTER  XVII 

HANS  MEMLING 

His  origin — The  St.  Bertin  Master — The  Sforza  triptych — ^The  Dantzig  altar-piece — The 
Chatsworth  triptych — Composite  pictures — The  Shrine  of  St.  Ursula — His  portraits — Martin  van 
Nieuwenhoven — Studio  pictures — School  pictures  .....  pp.  222-245 


CHAPTER  XVIII 

MINOR  BRUGES  PAINTERS  OF  THE  FIFTEENTH  CENTURY 
The  decline  of  Bruges — The  Ursula  Master — ^The  Lucia  Legend  Master — Archaistic  pictures 
— The  Andre  Madonna  ..........  pp.  246-255 


CHAPTER  XIX 

BRABANT  PAINTERS  AFTER  ROGER  AND  BOUTS 

Albert  Bouts — Minor  painters — Colin  de  Coter — The  Afflighem  Master — The  Magdalen 
Master — Goswin  van  der  Weyden  ........  pp.  256-276 

CHAPTER  XX 

GERARD  DAVID 

At  Haarlem — His  character — At  Bruges — The  Virgo  inter  Virgines — As  miniaturist — At 
Antwerp — His  last  works  ..........  pp.  277-291 


CHAPTER  XXI 

LATER  BRUGES  ARTISTS 

John  Provost — Jan  van  Eeckele — Various  pictures — Isenbrant — Lancelot  Blondeel — Peter 
Pourbus pp.  292-311 


CHAPTER  XXII 

QUENTIN  MASSYS 

Artists  at  Antwerp — Antwerp’s  prosperity — The  Morrison  Master — Lombard  influence — His 
landscapes — Early  pictures — ^The  Bankers — Marinus  van  Reymerswael — His  portraits — His  sons 
— Cornelis  Massys  ...........  pp.  312-333 


CHAPTER  XXIII 

JEROME  BOSCH 

His  origin — His  early  works — His  visions — His  maturity — His  allegories — His  late  period — 
His  imitators pp.  334-347 


CHAPTER  XXIV 

JOACHIM  DE  PATINIR  AND  HIS  FOLLOWERS 

Patinir  and  Diirer — Patinir  and  David — Patinir  at  Antwerp — Henry  Patinir — Mathias  Cock 
— Other  landscape  painters— A persistent  tradition pp.  348-361 


X CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  XXV 

MABUSE 

Carondelet — Mabuse’s  visit  to  Italy — The  Palermo  triptych — The  Descent  from  the  Cross — ^His 
nudes — His  Madonnas — His  later  portraits — His  failing  powers — Lambert  Lombard  pp.  362-379 


CHAPTER  XXVI 

THE  ANTWERP  MANNERISTS 

A typical  example — The  Master  of  Frankfurt — Jan  de  Cock — Friedlander’s  Groups — Jan  de 
Beer — Peter  Coeck  of  Alost — Dirk  Vellert  .......  pp.  380-396 


CHAPTER  XXVII 

JAN  JOEST,  BARTHEL  BRUYN,  AND  THE  VAN  CLEVES 
JanJoest — Barthel  Bruyn — Joos  van  Cleve — Sotte  Cleve  ....  pp.  397-418 


CHAPTER  XXVIII 

BERNARD  VAN  ORLEY 

Early  works — Meeting  with  Diirer — His  portraits — Work  for  Carondelet — His  tapestries — 
His  followers  ............  pp.  419-431 


CHAPTER  XXIX 

JAN  MOSTAERT  AND  SOME  ANONYMOUS  DUTCH  PAINTERS 

The  Alkmaar  Master — The  Buys  family — Jan  Mostaert — Mostaert’s  portraits — ^Was  he 
Mostaert  ? pp.  432-447 


CHAPTER  XXX 

CORNELIS  ENGEBRECHTSEN  AND  JACOB  VAN  OOSTSANEN 

Early  works — The  Leyden  Crucifixion — His  middle  period — His  Crucifixions — Jacob  van 
Oostsanen — His  derivation — His  portraits — His  drawings  ....  pp.  448-463 


CHAPTER  XXXI 

LUCAS  VAN  LEYDEN 

His  likeness — His  life — Early  engravings — His  precocity — His  early  pictures — A new  style 
— His  portrait-drawings — Influence  of  Diirer — The  Leyden  Last  Judgment — His  illness — His 

death.  .............  pp.  464^-485 


CHAPTER  XXXII 

PETER  BRUEGEL 

His  origin — His  travels — Influenced  by  Bosch — His  peasant  studies — The  proverbs — His 
marriage — The  Adoration  of  the  Magi — The  Months— The  land  of  Cockaigne — Campine  landscape 
— His  death  ............  pp.  486-608 

Index  of  Works  of  Art  .....  pp.  509-522 
General  Index  .......  pp. 523-529 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS 


Hubert  van  Eyck,  Heures  de  Milan,  Fol.  93  v.,  from  Library  of  Prince 

Trivulzio  ..........  Frontispiece 


PLATE  I facing  p.  18 

1.  Charity.  A Miniature  from  the  Book  of  Hours  of  Jeanne  de  France,  Queen 

of  Navarre  (c.  1336-43). — p.  18. 

2.  Statue  of  King  Charles  V in  the  Louvre,  from  the  portal  of  the  Celestins, 

Paris. — p.  18. 

3.  Rhine  School  (c.  1420).  Paradise.  Frankfurt  Stadel  Institut. — p.  13. 

4.  Sepulchral  Effigy  of  Robert  d’Artois  by  Jean  Pepin  de  Huy  (1318-20). 

Louvre. — p.  18. 


PLATE  II  ..........  . facing  p.  28 

1.  School  of  Jacquemart  de  Hesdin.  Coronation  of  the  Virgin.  Louvre. — p.  23. 

2.  Jacques  Bandol.  Charles  V.  Dedication  page  of  MS.  in  the  Meerman- 

Westreen  Museum  at  The  Hague. — p.  19. 

3.  Melchior  Broederlam.  Flight  into  Egypt  (1393-8).  Dijon  Museum. — p.  28. 

4.  Henri  Bellechose  (?).  Altar-piece  of  St.  Denis.  Louvre. — p.  27. 


PLATE  III  ...........  facing  p.  38 

1.  Claas  Sluter.  Puits  de  Moise  (1395-1403).  Champmol  Abbey,  Dijon. — p.  33. 

2.  School  of  Sluter.  Mourners  on  the  Tomb  of  Jean  Sans  Peur,  Duke  of 

Burgundy.  Dijon  Museum. — p.  31. 

3.  The  de  Limbourgs.  Coronation  of  the  Virgin.  Miniature  in  the  Hours  of 

Chantilly  (fol.  60  v.).  Chantilly. — p.  37. 

4.  The  de  Limbourgs.  The  Cite  of  Paris.  Miniature  in  the  Hours  of  Chantilly 

(fol.  6 V.).  Chantilly. — p.  38. 


PLATE  IV  ..........  . facing  p.  118 

1.  The  de  Limbourgs.  Banquet  of  John,  Duke  of  Berry.  Miniature  in  the 

Hours  of  Chantilly  (fol.  1 v.).  Chantilly. — p.  77. 

2.  John  van  Eyck.  Man’s  Portrait.  Coll.  J.  G.  Johnson  (Philadelphia). — 

p.  67. 

3.  Robert  Campin.  St.  Joseph  making  Mouse-traps.  Wing  of  the  Inghel- 

brechts  Altar.  Coll.  Merode. — p.  118. 

4.  Robert  Campin.  The  Virgin  of  Salamanca.  Metropolitan  Museum,  New 

York.— p.  115. 


XI 


xii  LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS 

PLATE  V ..........  . facing  p.  150 


1.  Jacques  Daret.  Presentation  in  the  Temple.  A Panel  of  the  Arras  Altar- 

piece  (1434).  In  America. — p.  124. 

2.  Peter  Christus.  St.  Eloy  as  a Goldsmith  (1449).  Coll.  Lehmann  (New 

York). — p.  109. 

3.  Roger  van  der  Weyden.  Virgin  and  Child  (fragment).  Coll.  Huntingdon 

(New  York). — p.  150. 

4.  Roger  van  der  Weyden.  Man’s  Portrait.  Coll.Dreicer  (New  York). — ^p.  148. 

PLATE  VI  ..........  . facing  p.  154 

1.  Roger  van  der  Weyden.  Crucifixion.  Escorial.  Not  mentioned  in  the 

text. 

2.  School  of  Roger.  The  Sforza  Triptych  (1459-62).  Rrussels  Gallery. — p.  145. 

3.  School  of  Roger.  A Saint  and  Donor  (diptych),  dated  145i.  Present 

ownership  unknown. — p.  155. 

4.  Master  of  St.  Hubert.  Exhumation  of  St.  Hubert.  National  Gallery. — p.  153. 

PLATE  VII  ...........  facing  p.  178 

1.  Dirk  Bouts.  Descent  from  the  Cross.  Chapel  Royal,  Granada. — p.  159. 

2.  Dirk  Bouts.  Hell.  The  Louvre. — ^p.  168. 

3.  Hugo  van  der  Goes.  Nativity.  Wilton  House. — p.  176. 

4.  Hugo  van  der  Goes.  Sir  Edward  Boncle  and  an  Angel.  Holyrood  Palace. 

~p.  178. 

PLATE  VHI facing  p.  198 

1.  The  Master  of  St.  Giles.  Mass  in  St.  Denis.  Coll,  of  Mrs.  Stewart  Maekenzie. 

— p.  191. 

2.  A Follower  of  Hugo  van  der  Goes.  Coronation  of  the  Virgin.  Buckingham 

Palace. — p.  189. 

3.  Justus  of  Ghent.  A Courtier  of  Urbino.  Bergamo  Gallery. — p.  158. 

4.  Justus  of  Ghent.  P.  van  Middelburg  Lecturing.  Windsor  Castle. — p.  198. 

PLATE  IX  ..........  facing  p.  208 

1.  Albert  van  Ouwater.  Raising  of  Lazarus.  Berlin  Gallery. — p.  201. 

2.  School  of  Ouwater.  Raising  of  Lazarus.  Mexico  Museum — ^p.  202. 

3.  The  Haarlem  Sibyl  Master  (Ouwater  ?).  The  Sibyl  and  Augustus.  Frank- 

furt Stadel  Institut. — p.  203. 

4.  Dutch  School.  Virgo  inter  Virgines.  Lisbon. — ^pp.  203,  209. 

PLATE  X ..........  . facing  p.  220 

1.  The  Delft  Virgo  Master.  Nativity.  De  Somzee  Sale. — p.  211. 

2.  The  Delft  Virgo  Master.  Entombment.  Liverpool  Gallery. — p.  212. 

3.  Geertgen  van  Sint  Jans.  The  Virgin’s  Kindred.  Amsterdam  Gallery.— 

p.  216. 

4.  Dutch  School.  The  Holy  Family.  Dresden  Gallery. — p.  220. 

PLATE  XI facing  p.  254 

1.  The  Master  of  St.  Bertin’s.  A Convent  Scene.  Predella  Panel  from  the 

St.  Bertin  Altar-pieee.  Berlin  Gallery. — p.  223. 

2.  French  School.  Virgin  and  Child  with  Jeanne  de  Bourbon  (diptych  panel). 

ChantUly. — p.  226. 

3.  A Bruges  Artist  (c.  1500).  Virgin  and  Child.  Jacquemart- Andre  Museum, 

Paris. — p.  254. 

4.  The  Ursula  Master.  A Pilgrimage  Chapel.  Panel  from  the  St.  Ursula 

Series.  Convent  of  the  Black  Sisters,  Bruges.— p.  248. 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS  xiii 

PLATE  XII facing  p.  264 


1.  Albert  Bouts.  Madonna  and  Angel.  Worcester  Gallery,  Mass. — p.  258. 

2.  The  Brabant  Master  of  the  Solomons.  Solomon  worshipping  False  Gods. 

Amsterdam  Gallery. — p.  260. 

3.  Colin  de  Coter.  Madonna  and  Angels.  Present  ownership  unknown. — 

p.  264. 

)4.  Colin  de  Coter.  SS.  Michael  and  Agnes.  Present  ownership  unknown. — 
p.  264. 

PLATE  XIII  ..........  facing  p.  274 

1.  A Brabant  Master.  Portrait  of  an  Ecclesiastic.  Present  ownership  un- 
known.— p.  261. 

2.  The  Afflighem  Master.  Jeanne  la  Folle.  Wing  Panel  of  the  Ziericzee  Altar- 
piece.  Brussels  Gallery. — p.  267. 

3.  The  Magdalen  Master.  Wing  Panel  with  Portraits.  Present  ownership 
unknown. — p.  269. 

4.  Goswin  van  der  Weyden.  The  Virgin’s  Kindred.  Blakeslee  Sale  (New  York). 

— p.  275. 

PLATE  XIV facing  p.  294 

1.  School  of  Geertgen(G.  David  ?).  St.  Dominic  distributing  Rosaries.  Present 
ownership  unknown. — p.  277. 

2.  G.  David.  The  Dingwall  Crucifixion.  Present  ownership  unknown. — p.  290. 

3.  Jan  Provost.  Death  and  John  Lanckart.  Bruges  Gallery. — p.  294. 

4.  G.  David.  Diptych  of  Joos  van  der  Burg.  Fogg  Museum,  Cambridge,  Mass. 

— p.  281. 

PLATE  XV  ....  .......  facing  p.  306 

1.  Flemish  School  (1535).  A Protestant  Meeting  at  the  Chateau  de  Rumbeke. 

Coll,  of  Count  de  Limburg-Stirum. — p.  299. 

2 .  Quentin  Massys . Madonna  and  Saints . Coll . of  Mr . C . B . O . Clarke . — p . 323 . 

3.  Adrian  Isenbrant.  St.  Luke.  Present  ownership  unknown. — p.  305. 

4.  Lancelot  Blondeel.  Decoration  in  the  Palais  de  Justice,  Bruges. — p.  306. 

PLATE  XVI  ...........  facing  p.  344 

1.  Quentin  Massys.  John  Carondelet.  Coll.  Havemeyer. — p.  328. 

2.  Master  of  the  Mansi  Magdalen.  Virgin  and  Child.  Present  ownership 
unknown. — p.  329. 

3.  Jerome  Bosch.  The  Pedlar.  Coll.  Figdor  (Vienna). — p.  341. 

4.  Jerome  Bosch.  Ecce  Homo.  Coll.  J.  G.  Johnson  (Philadelphia). — p.  344. 

PLATE  XVII facing  p.  356 

1.  Joachim  de  Patinir.  Heaven  and  Hell.  The  Prado,  Madrid. — p.  354. 

2.  Mathias  Cock.  A Drawing.  Berlin  Print  Room. — p.  357. 

3.  Lucas  Gassel.  St.  Jerome.  Coll.  Nijland. — p.  355. 

4.  Henry  Patinir  (?).  St.  Christopher.  Coll,  von  Brenken. — p.  356. 

PLATE  XVIII  ..........  facing  p.  374» 

1.  Mabuse.  Madonna.  Carlsruhe  Gallery. — p.  364. 

2.  Antwerp  School.  Madonna.  Coll.  Bandelier,  from  Bolivia. — p.  367. 

3.  Mabuse.  Emperor  Charles  V.  Budapest  Gallery. — p.  370. 

4.  Mabuse  (by  or  after).  Portrait  of  a Child.  Gorhambury. — Not  referred 
to  in  the  text. 


XIV 


LIST  OF  ILLUSTRATIONS 


PLATE  XIX facing  p.  386 

1.  Antwerp  School.  Virgo  inter  Virgines.  Lisbon  Palace. — p.  381. 

2.  The  Master  of  Frankfurt.  Magi.  Present  ownership  unknown. — p.  384. 

3.  Jan  de  Cock.  SS.  Paul  and  Anthony.  Coll.  Liechtenstein  (Vienna). — p.385. 

4.  Antwerp  Mannerist  A.  Magi.  The  Prado,  Madrid. — p.  386. 

PLATE  XX facing  p.  39Q 

1.  Antwerp  Mannerist  B (Jan  de  Beer  ?).  Annunciation.  Present  ownership 

unknown. — ^p.  387. 

2.  Antwerp  Mannerist  C.  Last  Supper.  Present  ownership  unknown. — p.  389. 

3.  Antwerp  Mannerist  D.  Pieta.  Carlsruhe  Gallery. — p.  389. 

4.  Antwerp  Mannerist  E.  Magi.  Coll,  of  Lord  Carew. — ^p.  390. 

PLATE  XXI . facing  p.  406 

1.  Dirk  Vellert.  Magi.  Present  ownership  unknown. — p.  393. 

2.  Jan  Joest.  Christ  at  the  Well.  St.  Nicholas’,  Calcar. — p.  398. 

3.  Barthel  Bruyn.  Nativity.  Present  ownership  unknown. — p.  399. 

4.  Joos  van  Cleve.  Madonna  and  Angels.  Ince  Hall,  Liverpool. — ^p.  407. 

PLATE  XXII  ..........  facing  p.  420 

1.  Joos  van  Cleve.  St.  John  at  Patmos.  Present  ownership  unknown. — p.  409. 

2.  Joos  van  Cleve.  Man’s  Portrait.  Worcester  Gallery,  Mass. — p.  411. 

3.  Sotte  (Cornells  van)  Cleve.  Man’s  Portrait.  Antwerp  Gallery. — p.  415. 

4.  Bernard  van  Orley.  Madonna  with  Angels.  Present  ownership  unknown. 

— p.  421. 

PLATE  XXIII facing  p.  458 

1.  The  Master  of  Alkmaar.  The  Supper  at  Simon’s.  Budapest  Gallery. — 

p.  433. 

2.  Jan  Mostaert.  West  Indian  Landscape.  Van  Stolk  Museum,  Haarlem. — 

p.  442. 

3.  Jacob  van  Oostsanen.  Nativity.  Present  ownership  unknown. — p.  458. 

4.  Cornells  Engebrechtsen.  Christ  with  Prophets.  Coll.  Flersheim. — ^p.  448. 

PLATE  XXIV facing  p.  506 

1.  Lucas  van  Leyden.  Magi.  Coll.  Ryerson  (Chicago). — ^p.  471. 

2.  Peter  Bruegel.  The  Rhone  Valley  in  Winter  with  Villeneuve  in  the  distance. 

Vienna  Gallery. — p.  502. 

3.  Peter  Bruegel.  A Drunken  Husband.  Present  ownership  unknown. — p.  503. 

4.  Peter  Bruegel.  The  Hireling  Shepherd.  Coll.  J.  G.  Johnson  (Philadelphia). 

— p.  506. 


INTRODUCTION 


Upward  of  thirty  years  ago  I delivered,  as  Professor  of  Art  at 
Liverpool,  a set  of  lectures  on  the  Early  Flemish  Painters — the 
Van  Eycks  and  their  followers — which  were  presently  revised  and 
published  in  a volume.  It  bears  the  date  1887,  but  was  actually 
issued  in  the  preceding  year.  The  small  number  of  persons  who, 
in  those  days,  were  interested  in  such  matters  received  with  approval 
this  modest  volume.  It  is  still  a great  pleasure  to  me  to  recall  the 
kind  letter  it  elicited  from  my  beloved  friend  Professor  John  Ruskin. 
If  I do  myself  the  honour  to  print  it  here,  I can  surely  at  this  date 
escape  the  accusation  of  using  it  for  the  purposes  of  advertisement. 

“ Brantwood, 

CoNiSTON,  Lancashire. 

im  Nov.,  1886. 

“ Dear  Conway, 

“ I am  altogether  and  all  round  delighted  with  your  book. 
The  plates  are  perfection.  The  text  seems  to  me  as  right  as  right 
can  be,  and  deeply  interesting.  The  little  golden  block  on  cover 
is  as  beautiful  as  old  work. 

“ Could  your  binder  do  a dozen  for  me  in  strong  morocco  or  in 
white  vellum  ? I’ll  pay  for  the  strongest  and  prettiest  binding  you 
can  devise  with  him,  for  presentation  copies  to  schools. 

“ Ever  your  entirely  pleased  and  affectionate, 

“J.  R.” 

I have  often  been  asked  to  reprint  Early  Flemish  Artists,  but 
it  was  impossible  honestly  to  do  so,  the  book  being  hopelessly  out 
of  date.  The  whole  subject  has  been  minutely  studied  in  the  last 
thirty  years ; many  new  discoveries  have  been  made,  much  that 
was  accepted  has  been  disproved,  so  that  scarcely  a line  of  the  original 

XV 


XVI 


INTRODUCTION 


can  stand.  To  reissue  the  book  meant  to  rewrite  it,  and  for  that 
I had  neither  time  nor  inclination.  The  war,  however,  changed 
many  things.  It  entirely  revolutionized  the  life  of  students  who 
were  too  old  to  serve  the  country  in  any  of  the  ways  open  to  the 
young  and  the  middle-aged.  By  greatly  reducing  the  output  of 
research  it  gave  time  for  reflection  and  revision.  The  passing 
months  did  not  bring  that  fresh  harvest  of  observations  and 
discoveries  which  the  brief  intervals  between  publications  used 
scarcely  to  be  long  enough  to  absorb.  It  was  impossible  in  war- 
time to  travel  for  research.  Pending  questions  that  needed  a visit 
to  this  or  that  foreign  museum  for  their  solution  had  to  hang  up  till 
the  war  was  over.  There  was  time,  therefore,  to  go  back  over  old 
ground  and  to  reconsider  matters  of  former  interest.  The  immense 
tragedy  of  Belgium  naturally  drew  the  mind  of  anyone  who  had 
known  her  cities  and  been  eaught  by  the  spell  of  her  aneient  art 
to  retrace  the  memory  of  happier  days.  No  one  could  say  how 
many  of  the  treasures  that  once  seemed  so  safely  housed  and  so 
carefully  tended  might  not  have  been  wrenched  from  their  places 
of  honour  or  destroyed.  A dark  pall  of  mystery  enveloped  their 
fate  at  the  time  when  I was  writing  this  book,  and  added  a pathetic 
element  to  a subject  always  rich  with  the  aecumulated  interests 
converging  upon  precious  objects  which  have  passed  through 
centuries  of  peril. 

Thus,  being  at  that  time  unemployable  in  war-work,  I was  led 
in  the  long  months  of  suspense  and  anxiety  to  turn  for  relief  to  my 
old  friends,  who  lie  so  quietly  there,  treasured  up  in  the  silent  and 
changeless  past — the  great  mediaeval  painters  of  the  provinces 
which  now  form  Belgium,  Holland,  and  a part  of  Franee.  I turned 
over  my  collection  of  photographs,  looked  up  my  notes,  re-read 
my  old  book,  and  thus  occupied,  found  myself  beginning,  almost 
before  I knew  it,  the  revision  of  that  antiquated  text.  More  than 
revision,  however,  proved  to  be  necessary  ; the  whole  had  to  be 
rewritten,  not  even  on  the  old  lines,  for  both  the  subject  and  the 
writer  had  changed.  Current  thoughts  will  not  fit  into  obsolete 


INTRODUCTION 


xvii 


sentences  ; opinions  which  once  seemed  sound,  seemed  sound  no 
longer.  Still,  the  purpose  of  this  new  work  and  that  old  one  is  the 
same — not  to  record  and  co-ordinate  all  the  as  yet  discovered  facts 
about  painters  and  pictures,  nor  even  to  discuss  all  the  works  of  any 
artist,  however  great,  nor  necessarily  any  work  of  every  identified 
artist  of  the  period,  however  small ; but  to  open  the  way  for  the 
ordinary  intelligent  person  to  enter  into  this  particular  domain  of 
art,  and  there  orient  himself  and  find  a solution  of  such  difficulties 
as  are  to  be  encountered  on  the  threshold. 

Three  names  are  specially  memorable  in  connexion  with  fruitful 
and  efficient  research  into  the  history  of  our  school : those  of 
Mr.  W.  H.  James  Weale,  Dr.  Friedlander,  and  Professor  G.  Hulin 
de  Loo.  The  first  mentioned  was  the  founder  of  the  study.  More 
than  half  a century  ago,  when  resident  at  Bruges,  he  began  to 
decipher  the  neglected  archives  of  that  ancient  city,  the  home  of 
so  many  artists  in  the  fifteenth  century.  Several  years  of  such 
work,  and  the  scholarly  publication  of  his  discoveries  from  time  to 
time,  laid  a solid  foundation  upon  which  later  students  have  been 
able  to  build.  It  has  been  given  to  few  men,  as  it  was  to  him,  to 
see  his  own  excellent  pioneer  work  ably  carried  forward  to  such 
remarkable  results  as  till  recently  he  lived  to  enjoy.  Dr.  Fried- 
lander and  Professor  Hulin,  to  name  only  the  two  most  eminent  of 
the  later  generation  of  workers,  have  had  advantages  which  their 
predecessors  did  not  possess.  They  have  at  their  disposal  the 
invaluable  aid  of  photography,  and  they  have  lived  in  days  when 
the  whole  apparatus  of  study  has  been  elaborated  : museum-cata- 
logues, sale-catalogues,  specialist  magazines,  rapid  and  easy  means 
of  travel  and  communication,  as  well  as  the  valuable  organizations 
which  great  museums  now  provide.  With  such  advantages  and 
the  co-operation  of  numerous  efficient  workers  along  the  same  or 
parallel  fines,  with  archives  searched  and  published  by  experts  in  all 
the  old  countries,  it  is  not  surprising  that  rapid  and  continuous 
progress  was  made  in  a study  so  fostered.  Both  the  leading 
scholars  I have  named  are  in  possession  of  a mass  of  as  yet  largely 
2 


INTRODUCTION 


xviii 

unpublished  material  which  they  have  laboriously  brought  together, 
sifted,  and  are  in  continual  process  of  co-ordinating.  In  due  season 
we  may  look  to  both  of  them  to  give  to  the  world  more  or  less 
encyclopaedic  works  on  a subject  which  is  now  large  enough  for  the 
life-work  of  an  individual.  Since  these  words  were  written  Dr. 
Friedlander  has  published  (in  part  re-published)  a suggestive  series 
of  essays  on  the  principal  artists  discussed  in  the  following  pages. 
The  book  is  entitled  Von  Eyck  bis  Bruegel.  It  is  not,  however,  the 
comprehensive  work  we  still  look  for  from  him.  Both  he  and 
Hulin  have  succeeded  in  isolating,  from  the  mass  of  existing  pictures 
whose  authorship  had  been  forgotten,  groups  of  works  which  they 
are  able  to  assign  with  assurance  to  the  hands  of  separate  though 
unidentified  artists.  In  a few  cases  even  the  name  of  the  artist 
has  been  revealed,  and  an  outline  drawn  of  the  cardinal  dates  and 
places  of  his  activity.  The  notebooks  of  both  these  scholars 
assuredly  contain  many  more  conclusions  of  this  kind  than  they 
have  yet  made  known.  If  we  can  now  point  with  confidence  to 
pictures  by  such  important  painters  as  Robert  Campin,  Jacques 
Daret,  John  Prevost,  Ambrosius  Benson,  Jan  Mostaert,  and  several 
more,  it  is  thanks  in  great  measure  to  the  work  of  these  two  gifted 
and  industrious  students.  More  numerous  are  the  still  anonymous 
artists  whose  works  they  have  brought  together  under  such  invented 
designations  as  “ the  Master  of  the  Amsterdam  Virgo  inter  Vir- 
gines,”  “ the  Master  of  the  Holy  Blood,”  and  so  forth.  The  day, 
we  hope,  will  come  when  the  true  names  of  some  at  least  of  these 
artists  may  be  discovered. 

It  is  not  my  purpose  in  the  following  pages  to  attempt  a com- 
plete digest  of  all  this  knowledge.  For  the  ordinary  lover  of  art 
the  works  of  second-rate  masters  are  not  important.  It  is  only 
the  owner  of  a second-rate  picture  of  a great  school  who  really 
gains  much  from  it^ — the  owner  and  the  specialist  student.  The 
great  men  and  the  really  great  pictures  are  enough  for  those  of  us 
who  desire  to  enjoy  rather  than  to  know.  Neither  do  we  much  care 
for  whom  particular  paintings  were  made,  if  they  were  persons 


INTRODUCTION 


XIX 


whose  names  mean  nothing  to  us  and  whose  achievements  did  not 
leave  any  important  mark  on  history.  Dates  and  names,  marriages 
that  affect  heraldic  cognizances,  and  all  manner  of  details  of  that 
sort  are  often  invaluable  as  means  of  fixing  the  place  of  a work  of  art 
in  the  line  of  some  painter’s  activity,  and  thus  throwing  important 
light  upon  his  development.  The  result  of  such  investigations 
suffices  for  us,  and  we  need  not  cumber  ourselves  to  repeat  the 
laborious  process  by  which  pioneers  have  revealed  precious  facts. 
The  important  pictures  are  now  well  enough  known.  The  great 
artists  are  identified  and  for  the  most  part  correctly  named  and 
more  or  less  correctly  dated.  It  is  not  likely  that  much  of  first-rate 
importance  remains  to  be  discovered,  or  that  many  pictures  of  high 
rank  have  yet  to  emerge  from  obscurity.  The  cities  of  Europe 
have  been  rummaged  from  garret  to  basement,  and  most  of  the 
forgotten  treasures  of  the  first  rank  brought  to  light.  Let  us 
therefore  for  the  time  content  ourselves  with  what  has  been  done 
for  us  thus  far  and  thankfully  approach  the  rich  feast  which  the 
labours  of  so  many  have  combined  to  prepare. 

The  very  day  when  the  writing  of  this  book  was  finished,  I 
received  an  invitation  to  become  the  Director-General  of  the 
Imperial  War  Museum.  Time  has  since  been  lacking  for  study  of 
the  publications  issued  in  foreign  countries  during  and  since  the 
war-years.  That  deficiency  has  been  more  than  supplied  by  the 
expert  help  kindly  extended  to  me  by  my  friend  Mr.  Tancred 
Borenius  in  helping  me  to  see  this  book  through  the  press.  My 
warmest  thanks  are  due  and  are  hereby  rendered  to  him. 


THE  VAN  EYCKS  AND  THEIR 
FOLLOWERS 

CHAPTER  I 

THE  GOTHIC  AGE 

Toward  the  close  of  the  fourteenth  century  the  art  of  the  Low 
Countries,  and  that  of  France  and  the  Rhineland  also,  were  still 
essentially  branches  of  the  great  mediaeval  Gothic  School,  though 
a new  life  had  entered  into  them  and  that  new  life  was  to  change 
the  face  of  civilization.  But  the  Renaissance,  if  already  heralded, 
had  not  yet  dawned  in  the  North.  No  one  there  was  consciously 
looking  back  to  the  achievements  of  classical  days  and  endeavouring 
to  imitate  and  revive  them.  That  was  to  happen,  was  indeed 
already  beginning  to  happen,  in  Italy,  but  for  another  hundred 
years  or  more  the  North  went  its  own  way  and  pursued  its  own 
traditions  and  ideals  whithersoever  they  happened  to  lead.  We 
cannot,  therefore,  profitably  launch  forth  on  the  stream  of  artistic 
production  in  the  time  of  the  Van  Eycks  without  making  ourselves 
to  some  degree  acquainted  with  its  upper  reaches  in  the  great  realm 
of  Gothic  achievement.  It  is  true  that  nowadays  an  author  may 
assume  in  his  readers  a much  larger  acquaintance  with  the  works  of 
mediaeval  art  than  was  possible  even  thirty  years  ago.  Travel  has 
familiarized  most  intelligent  persons,  even  in  England,  with  the 
great  cathedrals  of  France  and  the  churches  and  palaces  of  Italy. 
The  history  of  that  romantic  period  is  likewise  more  widely  known 
than  of  yore.  Such  outstanding  characters  as  St.  Francis  of  Assisi 
are  men  of  flesh  and  blood  to  many  more  than  could  have  realized 
them  a generation  ago.  It  will  suffice,  therefore,  in  the  first 
instance  to  quicken  the  reader’s  memory  rather  than  to  attempt 
his  instruction. 

Notwithstanding  all  the  knowledge  of  records,  literature,  and 

1 


2 


THE  GOTHIC  AGE 


art  of  the  mediaeval  age,  eentrally  represented  by  the  thirteenth 
century,  it  remains,  and  always  must  remain,  difficult  for  a modern 
man  to  enter  into  and  feel  at  home  in  that  age.  Read,  for 
instance,  Mr.  Coulton’s  notable  work.  From  St.  Francis  to  Dante, 
with  its  wealth  of  first-hand  descriptive  and  contemporary  reports 
of  men,  their  sayings,  and  their  astonishing  deeds  : it  is  assuredly 
not  easy  to  imagine  oneself  living  in  such  surroundings,  acting  on 
such  motives,  and  incorporating  such  peculiar  notions.  That  was 
indeed  a world-epoch  wholly  different  from  this  in  which  we  live. 
A world-epoch  is  not  a mere  scale  of  succeeding  events,  but  a vast 
symphony  of  action  wrought  out  in  the  lives  of  countless  men  and 
women.  Surely  in  no  age  except  in  the  great  days  of  Greece  was 
the  output  of  humanity  more  wonderful,  more  splendid  than  in  the 
Gothic  period.  Ushered  in  by  the  Crusades,  when  all  Western 
Europe  went  mad  with  an  ideal,  it  gave  birth  to  chivalry,  to  a 
wonderful  conception  of  human  unity  as  expressed  in  an  imaginary 
world-empire  spiritual  and  temporal,  and  to  the  most  complete 
and  in  its  day  entirely  lucid  and  acceptable  harmony  of  social 
structure  and  faith.  It  was  an  age  that  built  Venice  and  the  great 
cathedrals,  that  covered  Europe  with  monastic  establishments  in 
which  an  attempt  was  made  to  live  for  something  higher  than 
material  satisfaction.  It  was  an  age  in  which  the  seraphic  fire  of 
Francis  could  blaze  in  splendour  before  the  enraptured  eyes  of 
mankind — an  age  that  produced  the  kingship  of  St.  Louis, 
the  philosophy  of  Anselm,  the  enthusiasm  for  righteousness  of 
Bernard  of  Clairvaux.  It  was  an  age,  too,  of  song  and  wonder,  of 
the  almost  Homeric  Chanson  de  Roland  and  the  strange  world- 
wandering troubadours.  But  above  everything  else  it  was  a great 
building  age,  when  all  that  was  most  aspiring  in  the  minds  of  men 
found  expression  in  high-vaulted  churches,  rich  with  sculpture. 
Never  were  stones  more  gloriously  builded  together  than  by  the 
thirteenth -century  masons  of  royal  France.  Such  a cathedral  as 
that  of  Reims  was  not  a mere  specimen  of  what  could  then  be  made. 
It  and  one  or  two  others,  but  it  above  them  all,  was  the  incorpora- 
tion of  the  collective  life  of  the  people  who  were  at  the  head  of  their 
age  in  the  culmination  of  a great  world-epoch.  The  middle-age, 
as  it  were,  resided  in  Reims,  was  therein  embodied  and  entirely 
expressed.  So  long  as  that  cathedral  stood  in  all  the  glory  of  its 


ITS  CHARACTER 


3 


unrivalled  perfection  of  mass  and  detail,  the  middle-age  still  existed 
in  full  view  of  modern  man.  To  destroy  it  was  not  merely  to  destroy 
a beautiful  thing  that  foolish  people  might  imagine  could  be  replaced 
by  another.  It  was  to  destroy  the  chief  accomplishment  of  three 
hundred  years  of  the  labour  of  the  civilized  part  of  Europe,  for 
Reims  was  in  itself  a thing  commensurate  with  an  epoch  of 
civilization. 

No  great  Gothic  building  can  be  comprehended  at  a glance. 
The  mass  of  it,  the  balance  and  building  of  it,  do  indeed  impose 
upon  a spectator  an  immediate  effect,  but  it  is  in  its  details,  in  its 
ornaments  and  accessories,  in  its  recondite  parts  gradually  revealed, 
that  the  voice  of  the  edifice  is  to  be  heard.  Great  Gothic  churches 
were  intended  to  be  lived  with.  They  were  to  instruct  and  delight 
a settled  population — the  folk  who  had  made  great  sacrifices  to 
erect  and  adorn  them.  A Moslem  religious  edifice,  such  as  the  Taj, 
strikes  the  beholder  at  first  view  with  the  full  force  of  its  magnifi- 
cence and  beauty.  The  first  vision  is  the  greatest.  It  is  not  so 
with  a mighty  Gothic  cathedral.  The  impression  produced  by  it 
grows  with  time  and  familiarity.  The  great  mediaeval  cathedrals 
were  more  than  mere  places  of  worship,  prayer-books  graven  in 
stone.  Each  was  the  heart  of  a city’s  life.  They  symbolized  and 
expressed  all  that  mediaeval  man  believed  of  the  world  that  was, 
is,  and  is  to  come.  There  was  then  no  discord  between  the  religion 
and  the  daily  life  of  men,  as  they  held  it  should  be  lived,  nor,  con- 
sequently, was  a different  style  employed  for  the  adornment  of  one 
kind  of  object  or  another.  There  was  no  special  religious  archi- 
tecture, or  kind  of  decoration  proper  for  a church  and  unsuitable 
elsewhere.  Household  implements  were  embellished  with  carvings 
of  the  subjects  that  found  place  in  the  portals  of  a cathedral. 
What  the  sculptor  carved  the  painter  also  painted  and  the  em- 
broiderer worked.  Not  till  the  Reformation  did  the  wedge  enter 
that  was  destined  to  sunder  religion  from  daily  life.  Before  it  the 
two  were  but  different  aspects  of  one  thing. 

Mediaeval  art,  like  mediaeval  religion,  reflected  every  side  of  life 
and  tried  to  express  the  many  moods  and  humours  of  men.  Just 
as  folk-festivals  and  religious  solemnities  followed  one  another  in 
the  same  building,  alike  under  saintly  and  angelic  patronage,  so  art 
changed  from  grave  to  gay,  from  serious  to  grotesque,  in  the  faith 


4 


THE  GOTHIC  AGE 


that  the  eyes  which  regard  mankind  from  Eternity’s  stillness  look 
with  equal  favour  upon  hours  of  merriment  and  of  worship,  and 
find  as  much  to  approve  in  the  labour  of  a man’s  hands  as  in  the 
emotions  of  his  puzzled  heart.  The  life  of  Christ,  to  the  Gothic 
mind,  was  a permeating  influence  throughout  all  human  life.  The 
husbandman  at  his  plough  and  the  churchman  at  his  prayers  were 
both  performing  a religious  function.  Hence  the  common  intro- 
duction in  cathedral  portals  and  windows  of  the  occupation  of  the 
months,  these  occupations  being  as  much  a part  of  the  Christian 
religion  as  were  the  events  of  the  life  of  Christ,  its  founder. 

In  the  Cathedral  of  Chartres  the  full-toned  voice  of  a great 
mediaeval  church  may  still  be  heard — the  things  about  which  it 
spoke  and  the  manner  of  its  speaking.  That  cathedral  possesses 
in  tolerable  condition  three  fine  sculptured  porches  by  which  entry 
is  made  from  north,  west,  and  south.  Let  us  take  the  north  porch 
as  typical  of  the  rest.  It  tells  chiefly  of  the  Virgin  and  of  her  sweet 
influence,  which,  to  the  Gothic  mind,  embraced  all  the  thoughts 
and  actions  of  men  and  angels  in  the  visible  and  invisible  worlds. 
This  porch  contains  three  doorways,  each  filled  above  and  on  either 
side  with  sculpture.  Over  and  before  them  is  a richly  wrought 
atrium.  In  all  there  are  upward  of  seven  hundred  carved  figures, 
large  and  small,  many  of  a high  order  of  beauty. 

The  central  figure  is  a colossal  statue  of  St.  Anne,  holding  the 
Virgin  in  her  arms,  and  standing  upon  a bracket  carved  with  the 
story  of  Joachim.  Overhead  the  chief  subjects  are  the  Dormition, 
Assumption,  and  Coronation  of  the  Virgin.  Three  incidents  from 
the  birth  and  early  days  of  the  infant  Jesus  are  carved  over  the  door 
on  the  left,  their  purpose  being  to  tell  the  central  fact  of  the  Virgin’s 
life  ; in  a corresponding  position  on  the  right  are  the  Judgment 
of  Solomon  and  the  sufferings  of  Job  as  examples  of  Justice  and 
Patience,  the  leading  virtues  of  the  Virgin  herself.  The  setting  for 
these  central  jewels  is  of  an  astonishing  richness,  every  subject 
hereafter  mentioned  being  so  placed  as  to  suggest  sidelights  of 
thought,  by  connexion  with  its  neighbours  above  and  below  and 
contrast  with  those  that  balance  it  in  corresponding  positions.  There 
are  forty-two  colossal  statues,  twenty-six  of  Saints  and  Prophets, 
two  representing  the  Annunciation,  two  the  Visitation,  two  the 
symbolical  figures  of  Synagogue  and  Church,  two  the  Active  and 


A PORTAL  AT  CHARTRES 


5 


Contemplative  life,  while  the  remaining  eight  are  intended  as  monu- 
ments of  the  royal  and  noble  personages  by  whose  munificence  or 
under  whose  rule  this  great  work  was  done.  These  forty -two  persons 
stand  upon  brackets  carved  with  subjects  illustrative  of  their  lives. 
Around  the  arched-over  part  of  each  door  come  rows  of  angels  in 
the  voussures,  some  being  the  angels  of  the  sun,  moon,  and  stars. 
Then  there  are  the  physical  and  spiritual  ancestors  of  the  Virgin 
and  a number  of  representatives  of  the  human  race  in  adoration  of 
the  Lady  of  Pity.  To  these  succeed  sets  of  carvings  of  chief 
incidents  in  the  lives  of  Samson  and  Gideon,  Esther  and  Judith,  Tobit, 
Samuel,  and  David — each  chosen  as  example  of  one  side  or  another 
of  the  ideal  character.  Further,  we  have  the  whole  story  of  the 
Creation,  the  Fall,  and  the  condemnation  of  man  to  a life  of  labour 
and  sorrow.  Here,  therefore,  the  Occupations  of  the  Months  find 
place  and  with  them  the  Signs  of  the  Zodiac  and  figures  emblematic 
of  Summer  and  Winter.  The  Arts  and  Sciences  follow,  and  the 
various  modes  of  life,  active  and  contemplative  ; then,  as  warning 
and  example,  the  ten  Virgins  of  the  parable,  the  twelve  Fruits  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  the  fourteen  Beatitudes  of  body  and  soul,  and 
the  seven  Virtues  overcoming  the  seven  Vices.  The  whole  is 
surmounted  by  a seated  figure  of  God  Most  High  in  the  attitude  of 
benediction.  This  is  but  the  decoration  of  a single  portal  of  the 
church. 

Bear  in  mind  that  there  is  another  porch  as  richly  sculptured 
as  this  one,  and  a third  less  rich,  as  being  the  work  of  a previous 
generation  which  was  feeling  its  way.  The  church  within  was 
as  vocal  as  without.  What  paintings  may  have  adorned  its 
walls  we  know  not,  but  its  windows,  filled  with  storied  glass, 
still  exist.  Over  each  great  porch  is  a vast  rose  window  ; they 
represent  respectively,  the  Last  Judgment,  the  Glory  of  Christ, 
and  the  Glory  of  the  Virgin.  Beside  these  there  are  125  double- 
light windows,  35  smaller  roses,  and  12  yet  smaller.  Almost 
all  the  painted  glass  with  which  these  openings  are  enriched  dates 
from  the  twelfth  and  thirteenth  centuries.  The  windows  were 
gifts,  many  presented  by  guilds  of  workmen  of  the  town.  In  these 
the  occupations  of  the  trades  are  sometimes  shown,  subjects  drawn 
directly  from  the  folk-life  of  the  day.  Others  were  gifts  from  nobles, 
who  are  represented  by  figures  in  contemporary  costume,  though 


6 


THE  GOTHIC  AGE 


not  portraits.  One  donor  and  his  wife  are  shown  playing  chess — 
and  pray  why  not  ? But  the  greater  part  of  the  pictures  deals  with 
incidents  in  the  lives  of  Christ  and  the  Virgin  and  of  some  fifty 
saints.  There  are,  besides,  the  Apostles,  the  nine  orders  of  angelic 
hierarchies,  the  Patriarchs  and  Prophets  of  the  Old  Testament,  the 
parables  of  the  Prodigal  Son,  the  Good  Samaritan,  and  the  Ten 
Virgins,  as  well  as  illustrations  of  rarer  types,  such  as  the  Virgin 
holding  in  her  lap  the  Seven  Gifts  of  the  Spirit.  One  window  shows 
a set  of  types  and  antitypes  from  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  ; 
others  have  again  the  Occupations  of  the  Months  and  the  Signs  of 
the  Zodiac ; one  with  the  Stem  of  Jesse  is  copied  from  a famous 
original,  a few  years  older,  which  was  at  St.  Denis  and  was  likewise 
repeated  at  Le  Mans,  Canterbury,  and  elsewhere.  A few  are  filled 
with  a finely  decorative  grisaille. 

The  range  of  subjects  at  the  disposal  of  the  Gothic  artist  was  thus 
by  no  means  small,  yet  it  was  in  practice  restricted  to  such  com- 
positions as  were  understood  and  could  easily  be  recognized  by 
an  unlearned  public.  An  artist  was  not  asked  for  novelty  but  for 
lucidity  and  a decorative  effect.  Painters,  sculptors,  embroiderers, 
miniaturists — all  alike  worked  in  subordination  to  architecture. 
Most  of  the  beautiful  things  made  were  intended  to  be  used  in,  and 
to  harmonize  with,  a great  building.  Everyone  then  knew  that  a 
female  figure  holding  a lamp  upside  down  was  one  of  the  Foolish 
Virgins,  and  that  a woman  with  a wheel  was  St.  Catherine.  An 
artist  had  only  to  jog  the  memory  of  the  spectator  so  far  as  subject 
was  concerned,  but  he  had  more  especially  to  delight  his  eye,  and 
that  was  where  his  art  came  in.  As  rich  decoration,  not  in  sculpture 
only,  but  in  painted  sculpture,  was  an  essential  part  of  Gothic 
architecture  at  that  time,  so  painting  and  all  the  other  arts  were 
mere  handmaids  of  architecture.  Throughout  the  Dark  Ages, 
from  the  fifth  to  the  tenth  or  eleventh  century,  the  leading  art  had 
been  that  of  the  goldsmith,  as  in  times  of  insecurity  was  not 
unnatural.  By  the  thirteenth  century  even  that  had  been  brought 
under  the  sway  of  the  architect,  as  any  silver  or  gold  bookbinding 
will  show,  for  on  them  you  will  find  figures  in  high  relief  under 
elaborate  canopies,  which  would  serve  equally  well  as  designs  for 
the  sculptured  niches  and  their  contained  figures  on  any  cathedral 
front.  So,  too,  it  was  with  painting.  Pictures,  whether  on  walls 


THE  PRIMACY  OF  ARCHITECTURE 


7 


or  the  pages  of  manuscripts,  were  in  truth  coloured  sculpture  in 
architectural  frames  depicted  on  the  flat.  The  background  is  of 
plain  gold  or  resembles  a decorated  hanging  or  patterned  wall- 
surface.  Against  this  the  figures  are  relieved  in  coloured  silhouette. 
Their  number  is  the  least  lucidity  required.  The  grouping  is  simple 
and  approximately  symmetrical.  Each  figure  is  quiet  in  pose  and 
drapery.  Colours  are  flat ; few  are  employed,  and  those  bright  and 
pure— blue,  red,  green,  and  so  forth.  Allis  reserved,  direct,  and  yet 
brilliant.  The  figures,  moreover,  are  of  one  type.  They  express 
one  ideal  character,  except  where  vicious  men  have  to  be  portrayed, 
and  then  the  mediaeval  artist  fails.  Faces  are  not  intellectual, 
neither  are  they  individual.  They  possess  none  of  the  qualities  of 
a portrait.  They  depict  types,  not  persons. 

What  was  the  ideal  thus  everywhere  attempting  to  get  itself 
expressed  by  successive  generations  of  artists  in  all  countries  of  the 
west,  and  especially  in  France  ? It  was  the  ideal  which  generated 
the  devotion  of  saint  and  monk  and  nun,  and  sent  men  in  their 
thousands  to  the  Holy  liand  to  fight  battles  for  an  ideal  Lord.  It 
was  the  ideal  which  remade  Europe  after  the  Teutonic  hosts  had 
once  almost  destroyed  it ; which  raised  the  new  peoples  from  the 
grovelling  savagery  of  the  invasions  and  taught  them  to  be  reverent, 
generous,  just,  and  true.  It  was  this  which  has  bred  whatever 
of  manliness  and  righteous  life  is  in  us  even  to  this  present  day  ; an 
ideal  which  has  fastened  itself  as  permanently  in  our  thoughts,  let 
us  hope,  as  in  our  language,  and  if  it  had  left  behind  no  greater 
monument  than  the  name  of  “ gentleman,”  would  in  that  alone 
have  bequeathed  a richer  heritage  than  many  a conquering  race  in 
all  its  works  of  pride. 

For  a hundred  years,  no  more,  harmony  in  government,  social 
life,  religion,  and  art  was  maintained  about  as  perfectly  as  is  possible 
in  this  imperfect,  ever-changing  world.  By  the  fourteenth 
century  the  culminating  days  had  passed.  Feudalism  was  dying 
or  dead.  The  monastic  orders  were  growing  corrupt.  The 
pecuniary  exactions  of  the  Church  were  being  resented.  The 
balance  of  classes  was  becoming  unstable.  Most  ominous  of  all, 
society  was  no  longer  completely  permeated  by  a single  ideal, 
dimly  or  grossly  perceived  by  the  masses,  finely  by  the  elect,  suffi- 
ciently by  all.  When  J ewish  philosophers  introduced  the  works  of 


8 


THE  GOTHIC  AGE 


Averroes  and  the  Moslem  philosophers  to  the  philosophers  of 
Christendom,  and  thereby  gave  emphasis  to  the  inevitable  opposi- 
tion between  Nominalist  and  Realist,  the  seed  of  the  Reformation 
was  sown.  The  Averroists  of  the  thirteenth  century — ^William  of 
St.  Amour  and  the  rest — were  succeeded  in  the  fourteenth  by  Wicklif, 
in  the  fifteenth  by  Huss,  and  in  the  sixteenth  by  Luther.  Revived 
individualism  was  sapping  the  foundations  of  mediaeval  socialism 
alike  in  Church  and  State.  In  the  thirteenth  century  religious 
ideas  and  ecclesiastical  forms  and  government  were  in  harmony. 
After  the  thirteenth  century  ideas  were  steadily  changing,  but 
forms  were  maintained  by  vested  interests.  An  ultimate  cataclysm 
was  assured. 

For  the  student  of  art  the  fourteenth  century  spiritualists  or 
“ mystics  ” are  a notable  group  of  men,  whose  centre  of  life  was  in 
the  valley  of  the  Rhine.^  That  was  an  awful  time  of  wars,  famines, 
and  the  Black  Death.  In  presence  of  these  physical  horrors  sensi- 
tive souls  were  driven  to  turn  from  the  material  to  the  spiritual, 
from  the  darkness  without  to  a light  within.  Such  were  Meister 
Eckhardt,  Tauler,  Suso,  and  many  more.  They  had  no  thought 
of  sundering  themselves  from  the  Church,  but  they  raised  their 
voices  against  the  lewdness  and  luxury  of  Churchmen  and  the 
growing  formalism  of  the  folk.  They  did  not  preach  penance,  good 
works,  and  the  like.  They  endeavoured  rather  to  transfer  to  others 
the  enthusiastic  yearning  of  their  own  souls  after  God,  after 
holiness,  and  the  new  life  that  followed  upon  an  entire  surrender 
of  the  soul  to  Christ. 

“ The  mystic,”  wrote  Mr.  Beard  in  his  Hibbert  Lectures,  “ is 
one  who  claims  to  be  able  to  see  God  and  Divine  things  with  the 
inner  vision  of  the  soul — a direct  apprehension,  as  the  bodily  eye 
apprehends  colour,  as  the  bodily  ear  apprehends  sound.  His 
method,  as  far  as  he  has  one,  is  simply  contemplation ; he  does 
not  argue  or  generalize,  or  infer ; he  reflects,  broods,  waits  for 
light.  He  prepares  for  Divine  communion  by  a process  of  self- 
purification : he  detaches  his  spirit  from  earthly  cares  and  passions  ; 
he  studies  to  be  quiet  that  his  still  soul  may  reflect  the  face  of  God. 

1 See  A.  Peltzer,  Deutsche  Mystik  und  die  Kunst  (Strassburg,  1899)  and  Repertorium 
fur  Kunstwissenschaft,  1913,  p.  297. 


THE  MYSTICS 


9 


He  usually  sits  loose  to  aetive  duty  ; for  him  the  felt  presence  of 
God  dwarfs  the  world  and  makes  it  common  : he  is  so  dazzled 
by  the  glory  of  the  one  great  object  of  contemplation,  that  he  sees 
and  cares  for  little  else.  . . . The  mystic  is  always  more  or  less 
indistinct  in  utterance  : he  sees,  or  thinks  he  sees,  more  than  he 
can  tell : the  realities  which  he  contemplates  are  too  vast,  too 
splendid,  too  many-sided  to  be  confined  within  limits  of  human 
words.  . . . Give  a mystic  the  thought  of  God,  and  his  mind  wants 
and  can  contain  no  more  : from  a soul  so  filled,  all  peculiarities  of 
ecclesiastical  time  and  place  drop  away  as  useless  shell  or  indifferent 
garment.  This  is  the  reason  why  the  works  of  great  mystics  have 
always  been  the  world’s  favourite  books  of  devotion.” 

Such  were  the  mystics  of  the  Rhine  Valley  and  the  Low  Coun- 
tries— “Brethren  of  the  Free  Spirit,”  “Friends  of  God,”  and 
other  open  or  secret  fellowships.  Their  leaders  attracted  large 
congregations.  No  organized  movement  at  once  resulted  or  was 
desired,  but  individual  lives  were  changed  and  individual  thought 
germinated.  An  all-sided  effort,  social,  religious,  political,  industrial, 
artistic,  had  piled  up  the  great  Gothic  cathedrals.  The  whole 
round  of  national  life  and  thought  was  embodied  in  them.  No  such 
monumental  result  could  come  from  the  ferment  of  the  mystics. 
Moreover,  pomp  of  ceremonial,  and  all  of  doctrine  and  circumstance 
that  it  implied  or  involved,  were  discordant  with  their  feelings. 
What  they  desired  was  more  fervour  in  private  devotion,  more 
ecstasy  of  the  soul  in  contact  with  the  Divine.  Whatever  could 
help  toward  that  they  fostered  ; all  else  was  nothing  to  them.  If 
we  are  to  find  mediaeval  mysticism  expressed  in  art,  we  shall  have 
to  look  for  it,  not  in  the  architecture  of  the  thirteenth,  but  in  the 
small  and  highly  finished  pictures  and  manuscript  illuminations  of 
the  late  fourteenth  and  fifteenth  centuries. 

After  the  Black  Death,  in  the  middle  of  the  fourteenth  century, 
a change  took  place  in  Gothic  architecture  and  the  allied  arts.  Its 
monumental  character  gradually  deserted  it.  Great  wall-spaces 
are  fewer.  Clustered  columns  become  slenderer  and  more  multiplex, 
tracery  more  intricate  and  less  geometrical.  Ornamental  details 
increase  in  number  and  delicacy.  Lines  are  more  flowing  ; vaulted 
roofs  more  complicated  ; interiors  more  spacious  and  light.  Archi- 


10 


THE  GOTHIC  AGE 


lecture,  in  fact,  tends  toward  the  picturesque.  Sculpture  advances 
with  equal  stride  in  the  same  direction.  Rows  of  colossal  figures, 
which  in  the  thirteenth  century  stand  in  monumental  calm,  now 
begin  to  awake  as  to  the  actual  world.  They  turn  this  way 
and  that.  They  appear  to  be  conversing  one  with  another.  The 
Virgin  smiles.  The  Child  lovingly  strokes  her  cheek  or  extends 
His  hand  toward  the  spectator.^ 

Cologne  was  no  great  centre  of  Gothic  architecture,  but  affords 
an  interesting  example  of  this  change.  Here  are  some  noteworthy 
dates.  Her  cathedral  was  founded  about  the  beginning  of  the  last 
quarter  of  the  thirteenth  century,  and  its  enormous  choir  was 
finished  about  the  end  of  the  first  quarter  of  the  fourteenth — built 
in  fact  during  the  last  half-century  of  the  great  Gothic  building  age. 
Then  the  building  activity  slackened.  Years  went  by  and  little  was 
added  to  the  pile.  The  old  socialistic  architectural  spirit,  with  all 
that  it  implied,  ceased  in  the  city  about  the  time  of  the  consecration 
of  the  choir.  Turn  now  to  the  last  half  of  the  fourteenth  century, 
and  what  do  we  see  ? No  longer  a building  activity,  but  a busy  group 
of  painters,  Meister  Wilhelm,  perhaps,  at  their  head,  and  all  the 
Rhineland  filling  with  pictures.  That  is  one  indication  of  the  social, 
religious,  and  intellectual  change  that  synchronized  with  the  growth 
and  prevalence  of  mysticism.  Away  off  in  distant  Hamburg  too, 
and  in  Bohemia,  and  up  at  the  Rhine-head  about  Lake  Constance, 
the  same  change  was  taking  place  in  the  last  part  of  the  fourteenth 
century  : here  sooner,  there  later,  according  to  local  circumstances  ; 
but  the  limits  of  our  subject  cannot  be  so  widely  outstepped  as  to 
bring  these  movements  into  present  consideration.  A word  or 
two  about  what  happened  in  the  Cologne  region  may  suffice  as 
typical  of  all. 

Meister  Wilhelm  has  been  named,  but  in  fact  when  his  name 
has  been  written  down  there  is  not  much  more  to  add  that  is  known 
for  certain  about  him.  A certain  Wilhelm,  born  at  Herle  near 
Cologne,  bought  a house  in  the  city  in  1357,  seems  to  have  attained 
a good  position  among  the  people,  and  died  about  1380.  He  may 
have  been  the  Meister  Wilhelm  of  whom  the  Limburg  Chronicle 
notes  in  connexion  with  the  year  1380  that  he  was  then  active, 
and  that  he  “ painted  a man  as  though  he  were  alive.”  A few 
beautiful  pictures  of  the  Cologne  School  have  come  down  to  us 


THE  COLOGNE  PAINTERS 


11 


from  about  that  date.  Whether  any  of  them  are  by  him  who  can 
say  ? His  name  is  a useful  label  for  the  period  and  style. 

The  most  extensive  picture  of  the  kind  is  the  altar-piece  in  Cologne 
Cathedral,  called  the  St.  Clara  altar,  which,  one  would  suppose, 
must  have  been  painted  by  the  head  of  the  local  school  at  the  time. 
It  is  Gothically  architectural  enough  in  general  aspect,  with  its 
rows  of  moulded  arcading  surmounted  by  cusped  and  crocketed 
pediments,  but  the  paintings  within  these  frames  are  not  archi- 
tectural at  all.  Here  the  new  spirit  is  plainly  declared  —its  playful 
tenderness,  its  slender  grace,  its  “ sweetness  and  light.”  There  is 
none  of  the  old  stateliness,  but  a gentle  domestic  humanity  instead. 
See  how  in  the  Nativity  the  Babe  leans  out  from  the  manger  and 
tries  to  reach  His  mother’s  cheek  to  kiss  it,  the  while  the  ass  licks  His 
head,  and  the  little  angels,  fluttering  in  the  air  above,  make  music  on 
their  rudimentary  instrupients.  Or  note  how  happily  father  and 
mother  unite  to  bathe  the  Child  in  His  tub,  she  tenderly  holding 
Him,  he  pouring  warm  water  over  His  back  from  a copper  pot  — 
angels  overhead  busy  as  before.  The  spirit  that  animates  the 
compositions  determines  also  the  human  types  : slenderness  of 

body,  purity  of  expression,  grace  and  simplicity  of  flowing  line. 
Of  course  the  colouring  is  bright  against  the  gold  background,  the 
patterns  pretty,  all  details  pleasantly  decorative.  Happiness  is 
the  keynote,  happiness  in  domesticity  in  a world  of  people  of  good 
will.  That  was  the  kind  of  ideal  place  the  much-tried  folk  of  those 
days  pictured  as  a haven  of  rest  from  the  evils  of  this  world. 

Or  turn  to  the  little  Madonna  pictures,  intended  doubtless  for 
private  oratories  rather  than  church  altars.  They  must  have  been 
numerous,  though  few  have  survived  ; such  are  the  Virgin  with  the 
pea-blossom  at  Nuremberg  and  the  little  triptych  in  Cologne 
Museum  with  Catherine  and  Barbara  on  the  wings.^  In  the  St. 
Clara  altar  we  had  incidents  in  the  life  of  the  Holy  Family,  but  here 
we  have  Virgin  and  Child  held  up  for  adoration.  Older  generations 
in  such  case  made  of  her  a queen,  majestic  and  aloof.  Already  at 
Amiens  the  Vierge  doree  had  descended  somewhat  from  that  high 
estate ; now  she  has  approached  yet  nearer  to  the  human  heart. 
She  has  become  lovable  as  a woman,  whom  one  need  not  fear  to 

1 A foolish  attempt  was  made  a few  years  ago  to  throw  doubt  on  the  authenticity  of 
this  picture.  How  gladly  would  one  buy  of  such  a forger  ! 


12 


THE  GOTHIC  AGE 


address,  a gentle  friend  who  ealls  for  affection  rather  than  homage, 
and  will  pour  forth  the  protection  of  love  rather  than  of  power. 
Clearly  into  this  presence  only  the  pure  of  heart  can  happily  enter, 
but  they  will  find  themselves  indeed  at  home. 

The  religion  of  the  thirteenth  century  was  a side  of  the  whole 
life  of  a people.  Barter  and  sale,  manufacture  and  war,  alike  then 
presented  a religious  aspect.  But  if  thereby  the  ordinary  actions 
and  affairs  of  life  seemed  to  receive  a divine  sanction,  the  ideals  of 
faith  tended  also  to  be  dragged  through  the  mire.  When  the 
enthusiasm  of  mediaeval  faith  lost  some  of  its  vitality,  this  dragging 
down  of  religion  became  painful  to  the  more  spiritually  minded, 
and  a reaction  followed.  It  drove  the  mystery  plays  out  of  the 
churches  into  the  market-places  and  produced  other  like  changes. 
The  movement  of  the  mystics  was  part  of  this  reaction.  In  one 
sense  they  tended  to  sunder  religion  from  the  daily  life  of  ordinary 
folk.  They  laid  stress  upon  a change  of  heart  rather  than  upon 
ceremonies  and  conformities.  Not  the  visible  functions  of  the 
Church,  but  inward  emotions  were  for  them  of  prime  importance. 
The  acts  of  life  were  indeed  to  manifest  the  changed  heart,  but  it 
was  the  change  that  was  vital,  not  the  acts.  Thus,  for  them,  private 
contemplation  and  private  devotion  were  raised  to  the  first  place ; 
public  worship  sank  to  a lower  level.  The  necessary  worldliness  and 
pomp  of  ceremonial  of  the  great  symbolic  religion  were  distasteful 
to  these  forerunners  of  the  Reformation.  Hence  the  novel  type  of 
this  mystical  Madonna.  This  ideal  Lady  evidently  would  be  out 
of  place  over  a shop-door.  She  could  be  the  dream  of  a poet  or  a 
pure  maiden,  but  hardly  the  inspiration  for  a life  of  rough-and- 
tumble  action  in  a workaday  world.  She  belongs  to  the  oratory, 
not  the  market-place. 

Another  type  of  painting  expressive  of  mystic  ideals  is  the 
“ Paradise  ” picture.  The  type  did  not  come  into  existence  much 
before  the  fifteenth  century,  one  of  the  earliest  examples  being, 
perhaps,  the  central  panel  of  a little  triptych  at  Berlin  with  St.  Eliza- 
beth and  St.  Agnes  on  the  wings.  It  may  date  from  about  1400. 
Here  the  Virgin  and  four  Saintesses  are  seated  upon  a flowery  sward. 
The  naked  Child  in  His  mother’s  arms  plunges  His  hand  into 
Dorothy’s  flower-basket  and  will  give  a blossom  to  Catherine  who 
holds  out  her  dainty  little  bag  for  it.  Barbara  and  Margaret 


PARADISE  PICTURES 


13 


contentedly  look  on.  How  different  from  the  Gothic  altar-pieces 
of  less  than  a century  before,  in  which  each  saint  stands  solemnly 
in  his  own  niehe,  emblem  in  hand  to  tell  his  name  ! This  fanciful, 
wayward,  mystic  treatment  eomes  nearer  to  the  spirit  of  the  old 
legends,  framed  when  Christianity  was  young.  Here,  for  instance, 
is  the  tale  they  told  about  this  same  Dorothy,  fair  and  pious  maiden 
of  Cappadocia.^  Condemned  to  death  for  her  faith,  she  said,  “ So 
be  it ; the  sooner  shall  I stand  in  the  presence  of  Him  whom  I most 
desire  to  behold,  the  Son  of  God,  Christ  mine  espoused  ! His 
dwelling  is  in  Paradise ; by  His  side  are  joys  eternal,  and  in  His  garden 
grow  celestial  fruits  and  roses  that  never  fade.”  On  her  way  to 
martyrdom,  one  Theophilus,  a youth,  ealled  to  her  mockingly, 
“ Ha  ! fair  maiden,  goest  thou  to  join  thy  bridegroom  ? Send  me, 
I pray  thee,  of  the  fruits  and  flowers  of  that  same  garden  : I would 
fain  taste  of  them.”  And  Dorothy,  looking  on  him,  inelined  her 
head  with  a gentle  smile  and  said,  “ Thy  request,  O Theophilus, 
is  granted.”  Whereat  he  laughed  aloud.  When  she  came  to  the 
plaee  of  exeeution,  she  knelt  down  and  prayed  ; and  suddenly 
there  appeared  at  her  side  a beautiful  boy,  with  hair  bright  as  sun- 
beams. In  his  hand  was  a basket  with  three  apples  and  three  fresh- 
gathered  fragrant  roses.  She  said  to  him,  “ Carry  those  to  Theo- 
philus ; say  that  Dorothea  hath  sent  them,  and  that  I go  before 
him  to  the  garden  whence  they  came,  and  await  him  there.”  The 
angel  sought  Theophilus  and  found  him  still  in  merry  mood  about 
Dorothy’s  promise.  He  set  before  him  the  basket  of  eelestial  flowers 
and  fruit,  saying  “ Dorothea  sends  thee  these,”  and  so  vanished. 
Here  is  the  very  atmosphere  of  the  mystic  artist.  The  Gothic 
painter  would  have  depleted  a stately  maiden  standing  upright  in 
a niehe  with  a basket  in  her  hand.  The  artist  of  the  mystie  sehool 
lets  his  fancy  play  ; takes  the  old  symbols  and  makes  toys  of  them. 
His  art  becomes  lyrieal,  and  is  invested  with  a new  kind  of  charm 
which  painting  was  better  suited  than  sculpture  to  express. 

A well-known  picture  at  Frankfurt,  dating  from  some  twenty 
years  later,  shows  how  quickly  the  new  style  grew.  In  it  we  have 
no  ordered  grouping  of  courtiers  about  a central  queen,  but  a true 
mediaeval  garden  within  the  embattled  outer  wall  of  some  castle 
enclosure,  a raised  bed  of  flowers  up  against  it,  and  quantities  of 

^ Mainly  as  told  by  Mrs.  Jameson. 


3 


14 


THE  GOTHIC  AGE 


blossoms  growing  out  of  the  grass,  as  only  in  Dorothy’s  garden  could 
they  grow,  untrammelled  by  the  seasons.  She  is  there  picking 
cherries  into  her  basket  with  her  back  unceremoniously  turned  to 
the  Virgin,  who  is  reading  in  a book,  which  might  be  a romance  for 
all  one  can  tell.  Cicely  and  the  Babe  are  strumming  on  a cithern. 
Elizabeth  is  drinking  at  a fountain.  Three  young  knights  form  a 
group  conversing  together.  The  birds  are  all  tame,  the  flowers 
in  full  blossom,  the  sky  clear.  What  a delightful  world  ! No 
wonder  the  new  ideas  were  found  acceptable  and  the  new  style 
flourished. 

The  monuments,  which  the  central  mediaeval  age  had  created, 
remained — a precious  memorial  and  potential  force  of  great  power, 
capable  of  affecting  individual  men  and  women  of  any  day  with  a 
sense  of  what  was  noblest  in  the  heart  of  mankind  at  a great  epoch 
of  the  world — but  the  old  spirit  was  gone.  So  it  always  must  be 
in  a universe  for  ever  “ becoming.” 

“The  old  order  changeth,  yielding  place  to  new, 

And  God  fulfils  Himself  in  many  ways.” 

Only  by  dying  can  a man  enter  fully  even  into  the  whole  of  his 
own  life. 


CHAPTER  II 

THE  FOUR  DUKES 

Necessary  consideration  of  the  growth  of  mysticism  and  the 
change  it  was  destined  to  produce  in  the  arts  has  led  us  away  from 
the  countries  with  which  our  study  is  to  be  mainly  concerned — 
the  Low  Countries.  Situated  as  they  are,  they  were  open  to 
influences  both  from  the  Rhine  region  and  from  Franee,  but  it  was 
France  to  whieh  their  debt  was  greatest,  and  thither  we  must  now 
turn  our  attention.  Throughout  the  Gothic  age  France  was  the 
artistic  and  intellectual  leader  of  all  Europe  north  of  the  Alps  ; 
even  Italy  did  not  escape  her  spell.  All  the  arts  that  flourished  in 
the  culminating  Gothic  Age  reached  their  highest  level  in  France,  and 
particularly  in  the  domaine  royale  under  the  immediate  patronage 
of  the  kings.  This  is  not  to  say  that  all  the  great  artists  were  French- 
men. The  greatest  architects  were  no  doubt  mainly  French,  but 
where  the  arts  flourish  most  strongly  thither  men  of  artistic  gifts 
are  likely  to  be  drawn  ; thus  Paris,  especially  in  the  fourteenth 
century,  was  a loadstone  to  them. 

For  some  reason,  capable  it  may  be  of  explanation  but  not  yet 
explained,  the  people  of  what  is  now  Belgium  have  throughout 
the  centuries,  even  far  baek  into  Roman  times,  been  gifted  above 
the  average  of  mankind  with  the  power  of  artistic  creation.  Seven 
English  churches  contain  remarkable  fonts  sculptured  at  Tournay 
and  exported  thence  in  the  latter  half  of  the  twelfth  century. 
The  bronze  font  made  by  Renier  de  Huy,  now  in  the  chureh  of 
St.  Barthelemy  at  Liege,  is  adorned  all  round  with  sculptured 
figures  in  high  relief.  If  correctly  dated  1112  they  surpass  all' 
contemporary  seulpture  elsewhere.  They  are  remarkable  for  any 
date.  The  Meuse  valley  was  a leading  centre  of  metal- work,  and 
so  remained  generation  after  generation.  Many  a young  artist 

15 


16 


THE  FOUR  DUKES 


wandered  forth  thence  to  find  employment  and  opportunity  in 
France.  Such,  for  instance,  was  Jean  Pepin  de  Huy,  who  made 
the  beautiful  effigy  of  Robert,  son  of  Mahaut  d’ Artois,  now  in  the 
Louvre.  Such  also  were  Jean  de  Marville  and  Claas  Sluter,  of 
whom  more  anon.  The  employment  in  France  of  what  we  should 
now  call  Belgian  artists  became  yet  more  frequent  in  the  days  of 
the  four  princely  brothers,  sons  of  that  King  John  the  Good  who 
was  taken  prisoner  at  Poitiers  by  the  Black  Prince.  These  four 
men  were  the  great  art-patrons  toward  the  end  of  the  fourteenth 
and  beginning  of  the  fifteenth  centuries  : to  wit.  King  Charles  the 
Fifth  of  France,  Louis  Duke  of  Anjou,  Philip  the  Hardy  Duke  of 
Burgundy,  and  John  Duke  of  Berry.  By  them  the  splendid  out- 
burst of  art-production  and  its  rapid  development  at  that  period 
were  powerfully  fostered. 

Thirty  years  ago  little  enough  was  known  about  the  French 
schools  of  painting  in  the  century  preceding  the  Renaissance.  Few 
were  they  who  concerned  themselves  with  the  matter.  Archives, 
however,  had  been  and  were  being  read  and  published,  and  quiet 
work  was  going  forward.  Its  results  were  first  shown  to  the  world 
in  the  memorable  exhibition  of  “ French  Primitives  ” open  in 
Paris  in  1904.  Great  painters,  till  then  unknown  to  modern  fame, 
at  once  took  a recognized  place  in  the  history  of  art,  which  they 
have  since  held. 

Least  spectacular  of  the  four  patrons  I have  named  was  that 
efficient  monarch  Charles  the  Wise.  He  employed  scribes  to  write 
fine  manuscripts  for  him,  but  it  is  clear  that  it  was  the  text  rather 
than  the  embellishment  that  appealed  to  him.  He  could  not  but 
be  a considerable  builder  in  the  circumstances  of  his  day.  The 
old  Louvre  was  perhaps  his  most  notable  monument,  but  we  need 
not  here  concern  ourselves  with  buildings.  His  brother  Louis, 
Duke  of  Anjou,  M.  de  Farcy  tells  us,  “ had  a veritable  passion  for 
goldsmith’s  work,  enamels,  pearls,  and  jewels.  It  seems  like  a 
dream  to  read  the  description  of  some  of  his  treasures,  his  ‘ very 
noble  and  very  rich  ’ crown,  his  great  golden  tabernacle,  his  throne 
of  state,  and  so  forth.”  Already  in  1364  he  possessed  seventy-three 
tapestries,  and  about  a dozen  years  later  he  commanded  the  famous 
Apocalypse  set  still  existing  in  the  Cathedral  at  Angers.  The 
Duke  of  Burgundy,  who  also  ruled  over  most  of  what  is  now  Belgium^ 


THE  DUKE  OF  BERRY 


17 


is  a more  important  personage  for  us,  because  it  was  within  the 
area  of  his  dominions  that  the  great  developments  took  place 
which  concern  us  so  intimately.  From  Flanders  to  Dijon  his  sway 
extended  ; it  is  not  therefore  at  all  surprising  to  find  in  the  Bur- 
gundian capital  many  an  artist  whose  home  was  in  those  provinces 
which  in  our  day  are  no  longer  French.  Moreover,  these  patron 
brothers,  if  rivals  in  the  world  of  art,  also  often  aided  one  another 
to  find  efficient  craftsmen.  The  Duke  of  Burgundy  could  supply 
many  a good  sculptor  and  painter  to  his  brothers,  and  thus 
helped  to  provide  opportunities  for  artists  young  and  old  from  his 
own  lands.  The  brothers,  too,  would  from  time  to  time  lend  to 
one  another  artists  in  their  employ  for  particular  works,  or  permit 
another’s  craftsman  to  see  and  gather  hints  from  some  work  that 
was  in  process  of  making.  In  this,  as  in  many  ways,  they  forwarded 
the  development  of  art  in  the  studios  maintained  by  them.  Beside 
a great  number  of  finely  illustrated  manuscripts,  the  chief  works 
made  for  the  Duke  of  Burgundy  that  specially  concern  us  were 
those  that  pertained  to  the  building,  adornment,  and  furnishing  of 
the  Carthusian  Convent  of  Champmol,  close  to  Dijon,  which  he 
built  to  be  the  burial-place  of  his  house. 

As  for  the  Duke  of  Berry,  who  was  evidently  the  most  artistic- 
ally gifted  of  the  four,  every  kind  of  splendid  thing  that  could  then 
be  made  was  produced  in  the  utmost  possible  perfection  for  him. 
He  built  numerous  chateaux  of  elaborate  character — all  now  practi- 
cally destroyed.  His  manuscripts  were  the  most  splendid,  his  plate 
the  most  sumptuous.  The  mere  inventories  of  his  goods  bewilder 
the  modern  student.  The  artists  in  his  service  were  a small  army  ; 
they  were  seleeted  carefully  and  set  to  work  with  a correct  under- 
standing of  what  could  best  be  required  of  each.  We  need  not 
here  inquire  how  they  were  paid.  The  Duke  needed  vast  sums  of 
money  and  managed  to  raise  them  out  of  the  pockets  of  his  subjects. 
Most  was,  however,  so  well  spent  that  if  the  public  had  taken  more 
care  of  the  product,  France  would  be  notably  richer  in  precious 
works  of  art  even  than  she  is  to-day.  Only  a small  fraction  of  the 
Duke’s  treasures  have  survived,  but  each  is  a thing  of  high  and 
sometimes  almost  incalculable  value,  measured  in  mere  money. 
Greater,  however,  even  than  the  actual  output  of  fine  works  which 
came  into  existence  at  his  bidding  was  the  impulse  he  gave  to  the 


18 


THE  FOUR  DUKES 


development  of  art,  an  impulse  that  endured  long  after  he  himself 
had  ceased  from  all  earthly  activities. 

The  style  of  French  art,  alike  in  sculpture,  painting,  and  all 
other  categories,  when  these  four  patrons  began  to  affect  it,  was  a 
style  definite,  elaborated,  and  logical.  At  no  time  was  the  lucidity 
and  delicate  fancy  of  the  French  mind  better  expressed  in  art  than 
about  the  middle  of  the  fourteenth  century.  The  monumental 
dignity  of  a hundred  years  before,  of  which  the  sculptured  portal 
of  the  Virgin  in  her  cathedral  at  Paris  is  the  central  example,  had 
given  place  to  a more  delicate,  elaborate,  and  picturesque  style. 
As  it  is  always  more  profitable,  in  art  matters  at  any  rate,  to  deal 
with  the  concrete  rather  than  the  abstract,  let  us  examine  one  or 
two  characteristic  examples  of  French  fourteenth  century  work. 
The  already  cited  effigy  of  Robert  d’ Artois  (c.  1318--20)  may  be 
chosen  to  represent  sculpture,  while  for  painting  we  may  take  a 
fine  page  of  some  manuscript  such  as  the  Book  of  Hours  of  Jeanne 
de  France,  Queen  of  Navarre  (c.  1336-43)  which  was  in  Mr.  Yates 
Thompson’s  Library.  It  will  be  realized  at  a glance  how  completely 
both  are  inspired  by  the  same  spirit.  Obviously  what  is  admirable 
here  is  neither  force  nor  any  approach  to  naturalism,  but  delicacy 
and  grace.  A refined  sense  of  decorative  value  guides  and  restrains 
the  artist’s  hand.  But  the  illustrations  speak  for  themselves — why 
toil  to  translate  imperfectly  into  words  the  perfection  of  their  direct 
appeal  ? A little  later  and  we  shall  find  that  the  moment  of  serene 
rightness  has  passed.  The  pages  of  a manuscript  will  be  surrounded 
by  similar  borders,  but  the  details  will  be  coarser  and  more  formal, 
more  multitudinous  too  and  intricate  but  not  so  satisfying. 
Guardian  angels  will  not  be  conceived  so  simply,  nor  a Queen,  such 
as  this  angel  guides  in  charity,  so  entirely  a being  newly  come  from 
fairy-land  to  irradiate  the  earth  with  pity  so  gentle. 

To  mark  the  change  that  set  in  about  the  beginning  of  the  last 
third  of  the  century,  compare  with  Pepin  de  Huy’s  figure  the 
standing  effigy  of  King  Charles  V,  set  up  about  the  year  1370  in  the 
portal  of  the  Church  of  the  Celestins  in  Paris,  and  now  in  the  Louvre. 
All  the  sweet  grace  is  gone  ; in  place  of  it  we  find  a bold  naturalism. 
Here  stands  the  man  himself,  “ moult  proprement  fait,”  as  Chris- 
tine de  Pisan  observed.  Not  Beauneveu  but  some  much  better 
artist  made  it,  only  we  don’t  know  who  he  was.  The  King’s  great 


PLATE  1 


1.  JIIXIATUREFROM  THE  HOURS  OF  JEANNE 
DE  FRANCE  (1336-48).— p.  18. 


2.  KING  CHARLES  V (c.  1,370). 
LOUVRE— p.  18. 


3.  PARADISE-GARDEN.  RHINE  SCHOOL  (c.  1420).  4.  ROBERT  D’ARTOIS,  RY  JEAN 

FRANKFURT.— p.  13.  PEPIN  DE  HUY  (1318-20).— p.  18. 

[To  face  par/c  18. 


JACQUES  BANDOL  19 

nose  imposed  itself  upon  him,  and  he  gave  it  full  value.  There 
had  been  other  great  noses  before  this  one.  St.  Edmund  had  one, 
“ valde  eminentem,”  and  so  for  that  matter  had  Abbot  Samson  of 
St.  Edmundsbury,  but  they  are  not  recorded  in  art.  The  idio- 
syncrasies of  the  human  form  did  not  interest  artists  in  the  old 
days.  But  when  the  great  nose  of  Charles  V came  along,  the 
sculptors,  draughtsmen,  and  miniaturists  of  his  day  gleefully  seized 
upon  it  and  multiplied  the  likenesses  of  it  for  everlasting  memory. 
See  what  a hold  it  took  of  Jacques  Bandol  of  Bruges,  or  he  of  it, 
in  that  astonishing  dedication  miniature  of  his,  where  he  shows 
himself  presenting  his  book  to  the  King.  That  was  in  1371.  Com- 
pare his  painting  with  the  page  of  the  Queen  of  Navarre’s  Book  of 
Hours.  It  manifests  the  same  change  as  the  sculpture.  An  almost 
brutal  realism  has  replaced  the  ideal  grace  and  delicacy  of  a former 
day.  This  realism  invaded  France,  but  was  not  French.  It  was 
the  Netherlandish  spirit  finding  its  own  expression,  and  no  longer 
content  to  subordinate  itself  to  an  imposed  restraint. 

It  may  be  objected  that  already  about  1359  some  artist,  perhaps 
Girart  d’ Orleans,  in  the  employ  of  the  unfortunate  King  John 
in  his  exile  in  England,  had  painted  the  well-known  portrait  of  him, 
which  is  perhaps  the  earliest  testimony  to  the  existence  of  the  new 
tendencies.  But  we  have  no  certainty  that  that  picture  was 
painted  by  a Frenchman,  nor  that  it  was  painted  in  France. 
Jacques  Bandol  was  evidently  a Fleming.  He  did  not  live  in  Paris. 
He  was  already  working  for  the  King  as  early  as  1368,  in  which 
year  he  received  a house  at  St.  Quentin  as  a royal  gift.  He  comes 
into  the  refined  French  medium  almost  like  a barbarian  invader. 
His  dedication  miniature  is  a sure  milestone  from  which  we  can 
reckon  progress,  and  we  need  no  better  one.  The  realistic  French 
painting  of  the  fifteenth  century  was  plainly  under  the  influence 
of  the  schools  of  the  Low  Countries.  In  earlier  centuries  those 
schools  had  been  tributary  to  France.  Now  the  tables  were  being 
turned.  Obviously  the  movement  that  effected  the  change  cannot 
have  arisen  out  of  a French  initiative. 

Though  we  have  been  able  to  cite  two  emphatic  examples  of  the 
new  spirit,  dating  from  the  very  days  of  its  first  efficiency,  it  must 
not  be  supposed  that  a revolution  was  at  once  effected  in  the  char- 
acter of  the  whole  output  of  the  artists  working  in  France.  Things 


20 


THE  FOUR  DUKES 


do  not  so  happen.  The  first  generation  of  artists  employed  by  the 
Dukes  were  men  trained  on  the  old  lines  and  working  in  the  old 
fashion,  only  slightly  modified  as  time  and  the  pressure  of  patronage 
deereed.  Even  Jacques  Bandol,  when  in  1377  the  King  lent  him 
to  the  Duke  of  Anjou  to  design  tapestries  for  the  adornment  of  the 
chapel  in  the  castle  at  Angers,  took  with  him  a thirteenth  century 
manuscript  of  the  Apocalypse,  richly  illustrated,  and  was  no  doubt 
ordered  to  copy  those  miniatures  for  his  designs.  The  manuscript 
is  still  in  the  Cambrai  liibrary.  The  weaving  was  done  at  Paris 
on  the  looms  of  Nicolas  Bataille.^  It  will  be  evident  that  little  can 
be  learned  about  BandoFs  art  from  works  thus  designed  and 
interpreted. 

Every  student  of  the  art-history  of  France  in  this  period  knows 
the  importance  of  a certain  silk  hanging,  painted  in  monochrome, 
which  is  preserved  in  the  Louvre,  and  known  as  the  Parement  de 
Narbonne.  Such  painted  silks  for  the  service  of  the  altar  are 
known  to  have  been  made  by  the  King’s  painter,  Girart  d’Orleans 
{oh.  1378).  He  was  at  least  the  third  in  succession  of  an  important 
family  of  painters  to  whom  frequent  reference  is  made  in  fourteenth 
century  accounts,  but  if  he  was  the  artist  who  made  King  John’s 
portrait  he  certainly  did  not  paint  this  Parement.  The  name  of 
Jean  d’Orleans,  who  from  1364  on  was  one  of  King  Charles  V’s 
painters,  has  likewise  been  associated  with  this  work,  but  no  one 
can  certainly  say  who  made  it.  Sure  it  is,  according  to  Professor 
Hulin  de  Loo,  that  the  painter  of  the  Parement  executed  a set  of 
miniatures  in  a manuscript  commanded  by  the  Duke  of  Berry, 
which  we  shall  consider  presently.  That  was  between  1380  and 
1390.  Jean  d’Orleans  is  specially  recorded  as  having  made  for  that 
Duke,  into  whose  service  he  passed  about  1402,  “ une  petites  heures 
esquelles  sont  les  heures  de  Notre  Dame,  etc.,”  but  that  may  not  be 
the  manuscript  in  question,  which  was  anything  but  small.^  The 
painter  of  the  Parement,  whoever  he  was,  was  thoroughly  impreg- 
nated with  mid-fourteenth  century  traditions.  There  is  nothing 
realistic  about  his  style.  He  even  makes  the  figure  of  Christ  at  the 

^ M.  Guiffrey,  Nicolas  Bataille,  tapissier  parisien,  sa  vie,  son  oeuvre,  et  sa  famille. 

* It  appears,  however,  that  a “ petites  Heures  ” may  be  a big  book  and  a “ grandes 
Heures  ” a small  one,  the  adjectives  applying  not  to  the  size  of  the  book  but  to  the  liturgical 
character  of  its  contents. 


THE  PAREMENT  DE  NARBONNE 


21 


column  a graceful  pattern,  while  the  cords  that  bind  His  hands  are 
deeoratively  twined  and  knotted  like  a piece  of  fine  basketwork  ! 
Yet,  when  he  comes  to  the  portraits  of  Charles  V and  his  Queen, 
even  he  betrays  some  slight  sense  of  the  new  tendeney,  though  he 
cannot  help  refining  down  the  prominence  of  the  great  nose,  instead 
of  insisting  on  it  like  Flemish  Bandol. 

It  is,  however,  the  painters  employed  by  the  Dukes  of  Berry 
and  Burgundy  who  elaim  special  attention  and  to  whom  we  must 
turn.  A large  part  of  the  library  of  the  former  has  no  doubt  been 
destroyed,  but  M.  Leopold  Delisle  knew  of  eighty-eight  manuscripts 
made  for  him  and  still  existing.^  It  will  save  trouble  if  we  here  set 
down  the  names  of  a few  of  the  most  important  which  we  shall 
have  oecasion  to  mention  from  time  to  time. 

1.  The  Beauneveu  Psalter  (Bibl.  nat.  Paris,  ms.  fr.  13091). 
The  Inventory  of  1402  names  Andre  Beauneveu  as  painter  of 
some  of  the  miniatures.  Seven  were  added  by  Jaequemart  de 
Hesdin. 

2.  The  Grandes  Heures  (B.N.P.,  ms.  lat.  919),  finished  in  1409, 
illuminated  under  the  direction  of  Jaequemart. 

3.  The  Petites  Heures  of  before  1402  (B.N.P.,  ms.  lat.  18014), 
likewise  by  Jaequemart. 

4.  The  Trh  Belles  Heures  (Bibl.  roy.  Brussels,  ms.  11060),  made 
under  the  direetion  of  Jaequemart  and  containing  miniatures  by 
him.  I shall  refer  to  this  as  the  Hours  of  Brussels. 

It  is  unfortunate  that  in  the  multitude  of  miniatures  painted 
in  manuscripts  of  this  period  so  few  should  be  identifiable  as  the 
work  of  definite  artists.  We  can  group  together  tentatively  sets  of 
works  as  apparently  by  one  master,  or  by  a master  and  his  pupils. 
We  ean  also  find  in  inventories  and  books  of  accounts  the  names  of 
a great  many  artists,  but  we  seldom  know  what  works  to  assign  to 
any  of  them.  In  a few  rare  cases  we  are  able  to  attribute  with  reason- 
able certainty  some  work  or  group  of  works  to  a named  painter. 
One  thus  identified  thereby  reeeives  advertisement,  and  may 
appear  more  eminent  than  he  was.  The  reputation  of  Andre 
Beauneveu,  for  example,  thus  profits.  He  was  not  a first-rate 

^ Seventy-one  in  France,  ten  in  England,  three  in  Italy  (two  of  them  since  burnt), 
three  at  Brussels,  one  at  The  Hague. 


22 


THE  FOUR  DUKES 


artist.  The  painter  of  the  Parement,  on  the  other  hand,  gets  less 
than  his  due,  beeause  his  name  is  forgotten. 

Fortunately  we  can  name  one  of  the  best  painters,  perhaps 
the  best,  employed  by  the  Duke  of  Berry  at  a relatively  early  date. 
He  was  called  Jacquemart  de  Hesdin.  Hesdin  in  Artois,  if  that 
was  his  birthplace,  had  been  the  home  of  Countess  Mahaut — that 
great-niece  of  St.  Louis  and  grandmother  of  a Duchess  of  Burgundy, 
through  whom  her  inheritance  passed  into  the  possession  of  Philip 
the  Hardy.  At  Hesdin  she  had  maintained  an  important  atelier 
of  painters  and  artists  of  all  kinds,  so  that  Jacquemart  may  have 
started  life  with  an  artistic  equipment  acquired  at  home.  Mahaut 
died  in  1329.^  Jacquemart  can  have  been  born  about  1350.  The 
gap  is  not  a wide  one.  Whether  he  was  educated  at  Hesdin  or 
Paris,  it  was  the  traditions  of  the  Paris  School  that  Jacquemart 
acquired,  and  to  them  he  adhered.  There  is  nothing  that  can  be 
called  Flemish  or  realistic  about  his  art. 

The  Book  of  Hours  (No.  4 above)  now  in  the  Brussels  Library  is, 
no  doubt,  the  one  described  in  the  Duke  of  Berry’s  inventory  of 
1402  as  “ tres  richement  enluminees  et  ystoriees  de  la  main  Jacque- 
mart de  Odin.”  An  examination  of  the  book  shows  that  the  first 
two  full-page  pictures,  which  are  in  grisaille  with  the  flesh  parts 
tinted,  are  by  a master,  the  remaining  eighteen  by  an  assistant, 
whom  Count  Paul  Durrieu  identifies  ^ as  the  painter  of  miniatures  in  a 
quantity  of  other  manuscripts  and  notably  in  the  Hours  of  Marechal 
de  Boucicaut,  now  in  the  Andre  Collection.  It  is  therefore  only  the 
first  two  grisaille  pages  that  here  concern  us.  By  an  unfortunate 
error  these  two  grisaille  miniatures  were  for  some  time  attributed 
to  Beauneveu,  having  been  grouped  with  the  twenty-four  grisaille 
miniatures  of  prophets  and  apostles,  certainly  by  him  and  his 
assistants,  painted  at  the  beginning  of  Beauneveu's  Psalter  (No.  1 
above).  A more  critical  examination,®  however,  sufficed  to 
demonstrate  that  there  is  no  connexion  between  the  work  in  these 
two  groups,  the  stylistic  differences  being  fundamental.  Before 
the  correction  of  this  blunder  obtained  currency,  and  while  the  two 

^ As  to  Mahaut  and  her  artistic  activities,  see  A.  Kemp-Welch,  Of  Six  Mediaeval 
W omen,  London,  1913,  pp.  83  ff. 

^ Revue  de  I' Art,  June  and  July,  1906. 

® See  R.  de  Lasteyrie  in  Mon.  et  Mem.  Plot,  iii. 


JACQUEMART  DE  HESDIN 


23 


Brussels  miniatures  were  being  aecepted  as  characteristic  of  Beau- 
neveu,  other  works  were  referred  to  him  by  their  likeness  to  these, 
and  much  was  written  about  Beauneveu  when,  in  fact,  Jacquemart 
was  intended. 

Here,  then,  we  have  an  important  artist,  at  the  head  of  his 
profession  in  France,  whom  we  shall  find  to  have  been  representative 
of  French  art  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  fourteenth  century.  Besides 
being  responsible  for  the  production  of  the  Hours  of  Brussels  (No.  4) 
he  is  also  plainly  recorded  in  the  Duke  of  Berry’s  inventory  of  1413 
as  having  had  the  chief  part  in  the  Grandes  H cures  (No.  2 above) — 
“ tres  notablement  enluminees  et  historiees  de  grans  histoires  de 
la  main  Jaquemart  de  Hedin  et  autres  ouvriers  de  monseigneur.” 
The  mixture  of  hands  in  this  book  is  obvious,  but  it  is  not  difficult 
to  identify  the  work  of  the  leading  artist.  Far  more  uniform  and 
likewise  by  him,  though  not  so  recorded,  is  the  Petites  Heures 
(No.  3),  and  so  are  seven  of  the  miniatures  in  the  latter  part  of 
Beauneveu’’ s Psalter  (No.  1).  Recorded  dates  and  a comparison  of 
the  ages  of  the  Duke  as  depicted  in  the  miniatures  enable  us  to 
arrange  these  four  books  in  the  following  chronological  order,  the 
first  three  being  entered  in  the  1402  inventory  : 

Between  1380  and  1402,  the  Petites  Heures. 

Between  1390  and  1402,  Beauneveu's  Psalter. 

Between  1390  and  1402,  the  Hours  of  Brussels. 

Finished  in  1409,  the  Grandes  Heures. 

On  the  ground  of  similarity  of  style  to  the  foregoing,  Mr.  Roger 
Fry’  attributes  to  the  same  artist: 

A sketch-book  in  Mr.  Pierpont  Morgan’s  collection. 

A drawing  in  the  University  Galleries  at  Oxford. 

A portrait  of  Richard  II  in  Westminster  Abbey. 

To  the  same  school  we  must  assign  the  splendid  drawing,  in  the 
Louvre,  of  the  Dormition  and  Coronation  of  the  Virgin,  the  con- 
nexion of  which  with  Bourges  and  the  Duke  of  Berry  was  proved  by 
Count  Paul  Durrieu."  It  is  the  finest  design  of  the  school.  If  all 
these  works  are  not  actually  by  the  hand  of  Jacquemart,  they  are 

^ See  the  Burlington  Magazine,  x,  p.  31  ff.,  xv,  p.  73,  xvi,  p.  51. 

^ Mon.  et  Mem.,  i,  p.  187,  with  a fine  reproduction. 


24 


THE  FOUR  DUKES 


in  any  case  thoroughly  characteristic  of  the  style  and  period  of 
French  art  whereof  he  is  the  principal  exponent. 

We  know  almost  nothing  about  the  life  of  this  artist.  He 
was  in  the  service  of  the  Duke  of  Berry  by  1384,  at  which  time  he 
was  married  and  living  at  Bourges.  In  1398  his  studio  was  in  the 
Duke’s  chateau  at  Poitiers,  and  he  had  two  assistants  (valets).  A 
certain  John  of  Holland  worked  in  the  same  studio.  He  accused 
Jacquemart’s  valets  of  stealing  his  colours.  They  fell  to  blows, 
and  in  the  row  Perrot  Gurnier,  John’s  brother-in-law,  was  thrust 
through  with  a sword  and  killed.  Jacquemart  then  said,  “ Off 
with  us  ! Enough  of  it ! ” — the  only  words  spoken  by  him  that  have 
come  echoing  down  the  centuries  ! ^ For  the  rest  we  only  know  that 
he  was  alive  and  still  in  the  service  of  the  Duke  in  1409,  and  that 
he  was  dead  in  1413. 

Jacquemart’s  art,  as  has  been  said,  appears  little,  if  at  all, 
affected  by  Flemish  influence.  To  imagine  that  Jacques  Bandol 
was  his  master  is  absurd.  On  the  other  hand,  his  compositions 
often  seem  akin  to  those  of  contemporary  Italians.  This  is  the  case 
with  the  eighteen  miniatures  in  the  Brussels  Hours  which  were 
painted  by  his  assistant,  who  may  have  had  some  Italian  training. 
The  extraordinary  throne  on  which  the  Virgin  sits,  in  one  of  the 
first  two  miniatures  by  the  master  himself,  can  scarcely  have  been 
invented  by  one  who  knew  nothing  of  Italy.  Where  else  did  he 
derive  the  notion  of  those  startlingly  Renaissance  round  arches  ? 
However  that  may  be,  Jacquemart’s  art  was  essentially  Parisian. 
He  had  a delicious  decorative  sense.  Witness  the  background 
behind  the  same  Virgin,  a mere  tissue  of  angels,  charmingly  inter- 
woven, which  photography  has  thus  far  failed  to  reproduce.  Richly 
decorated  backgrounds  are  characteristic  of  his  miniatures.  The 
movement  toward  naturalistic  landscape  owed  nothing  to  him. 
Even  the  half-naked  golf-player,  whom  he  selects  to  represent  the 
Fool  who  “ said  in  his  heart  there  is  no  God,”  has  a diapered  wall 
for  background  to  his  ill-grassed  links  ! It  is,  above  all,  the  draped 
human  figure  that  Jacquemart  loved  to  draw,  and  if  the  Morgan 
sketch-book  is  by  him  he  was  indeed  a notable  draughtsman.  The 
most  attractive  leaves  of  it,  beside  the  one  with  the  sweet  Virgin, 
are  those  covered  with  the  heads  of  courtiers,  several  of  them 

^ See  Guerin  in  Arch,  hist,  du  Poitou,  xxiv,  p.  299 — cited  by  Bouchot. 


25 


THE  STYLE  OF  JACQUEMART 

dressed  for  a bal  masque.  Froissart  tells  the  story  of  the  famous 
ball  in  1393  at  Paris,  when  King  Charles  VI  and  five  of  his  courtiers 
had  themselves  sewed  into  costumes  that  turned  them  into  the 
likeness  of  wild  men,  covered  in  fur  from  head  to  foot.  The  Duke 
of  Orleans  entering  with  torch-bearers  had  the  misfortune  to  set 
the  five  courtiers  on  fire,  and  four  of  them  were  burnt  to  death. 
The  fifth  saved  himself  by  jumping  into  the  washing-up  tub,  and 
the  King  escaped,  thanks  to  the  presence  of  mind  of  the  Duchess 
of  Berry,  and  shortly  thereafter  went  off  his  head.  Nothing  is  less 
improbable  than  that  these  sketches  commemorate  so  startling  a 
tragedy.  It  is  not  the  event,  however,  but  the  quality  of  the 
drawings,  their  delieacy,  the  fine  modelling,  the  sense  of  form, 
that  here  concern  us.  I cannot  do  better  than  quote  Mr.  Roger 
Fry’s  admirable  criticism  : 

“ The  author  of  these  designs  shows  himself  not  only  as  a 
supreme  master  of  that  linear  design  which  had  been  till  now  the 
basis  of  the  miniaturist’s  art,  but  as  having  a sense  of  plastic  relief 
treated  pictorially,  which  was  altogether  new  to  the  artist  of  the 
fourteenth  century.  He  has,  moreover,  an  extraordinary  sense  of 
what  that  new  relief  can  express  in  the  rendering  of  character  and 
mood  in  the  human  face.  Character  and  dramatic  purpose  had, 
indeed,  long  before  been  marvellously  conveyed  by  pose  and 
gesture  of  the  body  as  a whole,  but  in  this  sketeh-book  we  see  a 
predilection  for  the  elaborate  treatment  of  the  head,  which  surprises 
us.  When  we  look  at  the  subtlety  of  gradation,  at  the  sfumato  of 
these  heads,  and  appreciate  the  psychological  imagination  revealed 
in  them,  we  can  scarcely  believe  we  are  looking  at  the  work  of  an 
artist  who  died  between  1402  and  1413,  while  Masaccio  and  Lorenzo 
Monaco  were  still  living,^  so  far  does  this  French  artist  antedate 
the  movement  of  Italian  art  in  this  particular  ; so  completely  does 
he  show  himself  as  moving,  tentatively  and  unseientifically,  no 
doubt,  but  still  as  moving  in  the  direction  taken  by  Verrocchio 
and  Leonardo  a hundred  years  later.” 

The  Louvre  drawing,  whether  by  Jaequemart  or  another,  is  a 
more  ambitious  design.  It  may  well  have  been  for  a great  painting 


Masaccio  bom  1401,  Lorenzo  Monaco  died  1425. 


26 


THE  FOUR  DUKES 


to  occupy  the  wall  above  the  altar  in  a chapel  in  Bourges  Cathedral. 
There  is  nothing  Italian  in  its  composition,  but  a wonderful  rhythm 
of  line  that  carries  the  eye  up,  through  swirling  groups  of  angels, 
to  the  seraph-ringed  throne  of  the  Trinity.  Below  is  the  Virgin 
on  her  bier  with  Apostles  standing  round.  Further  up,  borne  on 
a cloud  of  angels,  she  is  being  received  by  Christ  deseending  toward 
her  at  the  head  of  another  angel-cloud,  which  twines  down  from 
the  throne.  There,  at  its  foot,  the  Virgin  again  appears,  kneeling, 
while  the  crown  is  held  over  her  head. 

The  spaciousness  of  the  composition,  the  large  blank  areas  of 
sky,  the  absenee  of  formal  symmetry  find  no  parallel  in  the  tightly 
packed,  neatly  balanced  groupings  in  the  miniatures.  The  artist, 
having  a great  wall  to  cover,  was  faced  by  a new  kind  of  problem, 
and  solved  it  with  no  little  originality  and  skill.  But  a greater 
marvel  is  the  beauty  of  his  coneeption.  A more  lyrical  rendering 
in  paint  of  the  Virgin’s  triumph  was  never,  to  my  knowledge, 
contrived.  Fra  Angelico  himself  did  not  more  ecstatically  dream 
than  he  who  beheld  and  recorded  this  fair  vision.  That  the  same 
man  should  have  been  involved  in  a homicidal  brawl  seems  incon- 
gruous ; it  is  medisevally  far  from  impossible. 

Whether  the  famous  portrait  of  Richard  II  was  by  Jacquemart 
seems  doubtful.  Richard  was  at  Calais  in  1396  on  the  occasion 
of  his  marriage  to  his  second  wife,  Isabeau,  daughter  of  Charles  VI — 
a child  eight  years  of  age  ! If  the  picture  is  the  work  of  a French 
artist  it  was  probably  painted  then.  Before  its  restoration  by 
Mr.  George  Richmond,  R.A.,  it  retained  considerable  traces  of  the 
richly  diapered  gold  background,  now  replaced  by  flat  gold.  The 
attribution  to  Jacquemart  seems  based  on  insufficient  evidence, 
the  thin  fingers,  style  of  drapery,  and  other  features  relied  on  being 
common  throughout  the  school  of  Paris  at  this  time. 

Andre  Beauneveu  of  Valenciennes  comes  before  Jacquemart  in 
chronological  order  (born  about  1330-40,  died  after  1402).  He 
owes  most  of  his  reputation  to  a “ puff  ” by  his  fellow-townsman 
Froissart,  who  says  that  he  was  master  of  works  in  sculpture  and 
painting  to  the  Duke  of  Berry  and  a tremendously  fine  artist. 
That  is  an  over-estimate.  With  the  exception  of  the  aforemen- 
tioned twenty-four  Psalter-miniatures,  which  were  probably  rather 
designed  than  painted  by  him,  all  his  known  works  are  sculptures, 


JEAN  MALOUEL  AND  OTHERS 


27 


not  of  the  first  order  of  merit.  He  made  for  Charles  V his  effigy, 
and  those  of  his  wife  and  of  Kings  John  and  Philip  VI,  his  pre- 
decessors, all  of  which  we  can  see  in  Paris  to-day  in  a restored 
condition.  They  are  not  inspired  works.  Even  if  the  marble 
St.  Catherine  in  Notre  Dame  at  Courtrai  is  his,  it  will  not  add  to 
his  reputation.  The  one  thing  in  his  favour  is  that  the  Duke  of 
Burgundy  thought  it  worth  while  to  send  the  great  Claas  Sluter  to 
Mehun,  where  Beauneveu  was  at  work,  to  see  what  he  was  doing 
and  to  get  ideas.  One  would  have  supposed  that  Beauneveu  could 
have  taught  Sluter  nothing.  We  need  not  linger  over  him. 

The  Duke  of  Burgundy’s  group  of  Flemish  painters  might  be 
more  interesting  if  more  of  their  work  had  been  preserved.  In  the 
Louvre  is  a circular  panel  of  the  Trinity  with  the  Virgin,  St.  John, 
and  angels.  On  the  back  of  it  are  the  arms  of  the  Duke  of 
Burgundy.  If  his  court-painter  Jean  Malouel  (Malwel)  made  it 
he  was  an  artist  of  merit.  The  style  approaches  that  of  Broederlam 
more  nearly  than  that  of  any  other  artist ; but  then  there  were  so 
many  unidentified — Jean  de  Beaumetz,  for  instance,  the  court- 
painter  whom  Malouel  succeeded,  about  whom  the  archives  have 
much  to  say,  but  current  Museum  catalogues  nothing.  M.  Salomon 
Reinach^  attributes  to  the  painter  of  the  Louvre  roundel  the 
miniatures  in  a manuscript  in  the  University  Library  at  Heidelberg 
which  I have  not  seen.  Malouel  had  worked  at  Paris  for  Isabeau 
de  Baviere  before  entering  Philip  the  Hardy’s  service.  He  began 
work  for  him  in  1397  with  a picture  greatly  pleasing  to  the  Duke. 
In  1401  his  wages  were  raised  to  half  as  much  again  as  Sluter  ever 
received. 

Malouel  was  followed  in  1415  as  Burgundian  court-painter  by 
Henri  Bellechose,  and  of  him,  in  the  following  year,  Duke  Jean  Sans 
Peur  ordered  a picture  of  the  Vie  de  St.  Denis.  This  may  be  the 
large  and  ugly  panel  in  the  Louvre  from  Champmol  Abbey  with 
the  Communion  and  Martyrdom  of  the  Saint  at  the  foot  of  a 
Crucifixion.  A burly  executioner  is  taking  a second  cut  at  the 
saint’s  neck  with  a huge  chopper,  swinging  it  in  both  hands  over  his 
head  in  a way  most  dangerous  to  bystanders.  On  the  ground  that 
the  same  extraordinary  chopper  appears  in  another  Martyrdom 
of  St.  Denis  in  a manuscript  Pontifical  (B.N.P.,  ms.  lat.  8886),  and 

^ Gaz.  Beaux-Arts,  January,  1904,  p.  55. 


28 


THE  FOUR  DUKES 


for  no  other  reason  so  far  as  I can  see,  Bouchot  attributed  that 
set  of  paintings  to  the  artist  of  this  altar-piece.  It  seems  rather 
rough  on  the  miniaturist.  A better  attribution  to  Bellechose  is 
that  by  Professor  Hulin  de  Loo  of  the  little  Pieta  in  Troyes  Museum  ; 
unfortunately  it  is  so  damaged  that  small  joy  can  now  be  had  of  it. 
We  shall  return  to  these  pictures  later  in  connexion  with  Robert 
Campin. 

A decidedly  decorative,  four-lobe-panel  triptych  passed  in 
1912  from  the  Weber  Collection  into  the  Berlin  Museum.  It  dates 
from  about  1390,  and  is  said  to  have  come  out  of  Champmol.  The 
central  panel  holds  the  Trinity,  with  an  angel  in  each  semicircular 
corner.  The  Trinity  resembles  that  on  the  Parement  de  Narbonne. 
The  four  Evangelists  are  on  the  wings.  The  lobed  form  appears 
to  have  been  not  uncommon  in  France  at  the  time,  though  this  is 
perhaps  the  only  example  that  has  survived.  It  is  a form  common 
as  a frame  for  sculptured  decoration  in  the  central  Gothic  age. 
Curiously  enough  it  descends  from  the  shape  of  a group  of  very 
beautiful  jewelled  brooches,  much  admired  in  Merovingian  days, 
especially  in  the  Rhine  Valley  in  the  seventh  century — a truly 
Gothic  origin. 

Melchior  Broederlam  of  Ypres  is  another  painter  employed  by 
the  Duke  of  Burgundy.  Indisputable  pictures  by  him  fortunately 
survive.  They  were  painted  on  the  outsides  of  the  wings  of  one  of 
a pair  of  elaborately  carved  wooden  altar-pieces,^  copies  of  two 
which  the  Duke  had  seen  and  admired  in  the  church  at  Tenremond 
and  the  Abbey  of  Bijloke  near  Ghent.  He  ordered  Jacques  de 
Beaze  to  carve  them  for  his  Abbey  of  Champmol.  Evidently  at 
this  time  the  most  elaborate  and  fussy  Gothic  was  what  appealed 
to  the  Duke’s  taste.  In  their  present  much  regilt,  repainted,  and 
otherwise  restored  condition,  the  carvings,  for  all  their  multitudinous 
detail  of  arcading,  crockets,  and  tracery,  are  not  of  any  considerable 
merit.  The  figures  are  formal  and  stiff  in  their  niches,  the  “ his- 
tories ” lacking  in  grip  and  expression.  Broederlam’ s paintings 
stand  on  a higher  level  than  the  carvings  to  which  they  were 
subordinate.  The  subjects  are  patched  together  by  help  of  some 
exaggeratedly  slender  architecture,  such  as  Italian  painters 
employed  at  this  time  and  perhaps  invented.  The  effect  of  this 

^ The  paintings  on  the  wings  of  the  other  have  not  survived. 


PLATE  11 


1.  SCIinOL  OF  JAC01^’I’->IAUT. 
LOFV;\H.  p.  2:i. 


2.  JACQUES  BANDOL.  CIIA]\I.ES  V.— p.  19. 


3.  :\I.  BHOEDERLAM.  WIN’G  P.VXEL  4.  ST.  DENIS  ALTAH-PIFX'.E,  ATTRIBUTED  TO  HENRI 

(1393-8).  DI.IOX.^p.  28.  RELLECIIOSE.  LOUVRE.— p.  27. 

[To  face  page  28. 


■k;' 


AiSI 


MELCHIOR  BROEDERLAM 


29 


kind  of  architectural  linking  would  have  been  better  if  the  artist’s 
notions  of  perspective  had  been  less  rudimentary  or  the  architecture 
more  frankly  deeorative  and  better  designed.  The  individual 
figure -subjects  taken  separately  are,  however,  on  the  whole  so 
delightful  that  one  wonders  some  one  did  not  saw  them  asunder 
in  the  good  old  days  when  such  impieties  were  of  no  account ! Two 
of  the  backgrounds  consist  of  mountain  landscapes,  with  castles 
on  the  peaks — an  Italian  triek.  From  the  point  of  view  of  land- 
scape painting  they  are  not  very  hopeful  efforts,  but  they  at  all 
events  witness  to  a desire,  though  as  yet  not  to  any  power,  of 
depieting  Nature.  It  is  in  the  figures  that  Broederlam  attains  some 
success.  His  Virgins  are  sweet,  gentle,  and  not  without  beauty — 
the  face  peeping  forth  from  the  enveloping  folds  of  a voluminous 
cloak.  A delightful  little  half-length  Virgin  and  Child  on  a gold 
background  (sold  with  the  Aynard  Collection  at  Paris  in  December 
1913  ; No.  34)  is  of  similar  type — charmingly  affectionate.  The 
Child’s  eyes  are  as  big  as  those  Raphael  was  one  day  to  paint  in  the 
head  of  his  Sistine  Babe.  The  draperies  retain  the  undulating  and 
sweeping  curves,  often  returning  on  themselves,  which  were  still 
normal  in  France.  There  is  a lily  in  a pot,  whieh  might  have  come, 
pot  and  all,  from  Italy.  In  fact  the  wings,  though  not  charming 
as  a whole,  are  episodically  delightful,  and  the  more  completely 
realized  faces  with  their  carefully  studied  expressions  may  be  set 
alongside  of  Jaequemart’s.'  An  Entombment  in  the  Louvre,  a 
small  and  finely  finished  upright  panel  with  a bestarred  gold  back- 
ground, is  closely  connected  in  style  with  Broederlam,  but  I have 
not  heard  that  anyone  has  attributed  it  to  him. 

So  much,  then,  for  the  painters  of  the  Dukes.  There  were  plenty 
more  of  them  whose  names  are  recorded  and  some  interesting  faets 
about  them — Jacques  Coene,  for  instanee,  obviously  an  artist  of 
importance — but  as  we  cannot  point  to  their  works  it  is  merely 
tedious  to  read  about  them.^  On  the  whole  what  we  possess  in 
the  way  of  pictures  by  French  artists,  though  often  delightful,  and, 
in  the  case  of  Jacquemart,  of  high  merit,  does  not  indieate  the 
presenee  of  any  revolutionary  genius  among  them  in  the  last  quarter 

^ The  painting  of  these  wings  was  done  at  Ypres,  some  time  between  the  years  1392 
and  1398. 

^ But  see  Durrieu  in  Revue  de  VArt,  April  10,  1904. 

4 


30 


THE  FOUR  DUKES 


of  the  fourteenth  century.  Jacques  Bandol’s  miniature  alone 
produces  on  a spectator  the  sense  of  a novel  force  endeavouring 
to  find  expression,  but  it  stands  solitary  in  its  day,  so  far  as  sur- 
viving examples  enable  us  to  judge. 

When  we  turn  to  the  Duke  of  Burgundy’s  sculptors,  however, 
there  is  another  story  to  tell.  Here  is  originality,  high  genius  also 
with  new  insight,  new  emotional  forms,  a new  art-message  to  the 
world.  I refer,  of  course,  mainly  to  the  great  Claas  Sluter.  Sluter 
did  not  have  to  await  the  exhibition  of  1904  to  be  dragged  up  from 
forgetfulness  into  fame  ; indeed,  I think  he  had  never  been  quite 
forgotten,  though  his  reputation  had  no  doubt  worn  thin  and  thread- 
bare in  rococo  and  Revolutionary  days.  The  Puits  de  Moise,  in 
the  courtyard  of  the  Charterhouse  of  Champmol  near  Dijon,  was 
too  considerable  and  imposing  a mass  of  sculpture  to  be  long 
forgotten,  even  when  the  convent  was  made  into  a mad-house. 
When  I was  last  there,  howling  lunatics  appealed  to  Heaven  within 
easy  earshot  of  the  sculptured  base  of  the  crucifix  which  the  revo- 
lutionists destroyed  in  their  no  less  lunatical  fury.  Much  else  was 
smashed  up  at  the  same  time,  but  a good  deal  saved,  and  Sluter’s 
reputation  is  secure. 

He  first  appears  in  the  Duke  of  Burgundy’s  service  in  1385  as 
one  of  several  assistants  to  Jean  de  Marville  or  Menneville,  the 
Flemish  master-sculptor  to  the  Duke.  When  Jean  de  Marville 
died  in  1389  Sluter  succeeded  to  his  place.  One  of  the  chief  works 
they  had  in  hand  was  an  elaborately  sculptured  tomb  for  Duke 
Philip,  to  be  erected  in  the  Champmol  church.  The  making  of 
great  tombs  was  often  a burdensome  affair  for  the  sculptor.  Who 
does  not  remember  Michelangelo’s  troubles,  almost  amounting  to 
tragedy,  with  the  tomb  of  Julius  II  ? A wealthy  prince  might  project 
a splendid  monument  for  himself,  and  have  plans  made  and  even 
contracts  entered  into  ; but  sooner  or  later  work  to  be  done  for  his 
posthumous  glory  was  liable  to  be  postponed  in  favour  of  other 
work  for  his  present  enjoyment.  There  would  be  time  enough  for 
the  tomb.  We  are  not  going  to  die  just  yet.  Meanwhile  perhaps 
we  want  a sculptured  fire-place  for  our  own  chamber  ; let  that  first 
be  provided.  Thus  the  tomb  is  put  off  and  its  intended  tenant 
dies  before  much  has  actually  been  done  to  prepare  it.  Jean  de 
Marville  did  little  more  than  make  a design  and  direct  the  cutting 


CLAAS  SLUTER 


31 


out  of  the  basement  and  some  of  the  arcading  to  surround  it.  Then 
came  Sluter  and  carried  the  work  slowly  forward,  but  when  the 
Duke  died  in  1404  there  was  still  much  to  be  done,  and  Sluter  in  turn 
quitted  the  world.  Claus  de  Werve,  another  Fleming,  took  on  the 
job  and  finally  completed  it  in  1411.^ 

The  purpose  of  the  Abbey  of  Champmol  was  neither  more  nor 
less  than  to  provide  a magnificent  burying-place  for  the  Burgundy 
Dukes  of  the  House  of  Valois,  and  a proper  supply  of  religious  to 
pray  for  their  souls.  Hence  the  tomb  was  in  fact  the  raison  d’etre 
for  the  whole  business,  and  fulfilled  its  purpose  with  due  state  till 
the  communal  council  of  Dijon  in  1793  unceremoniously  ordered 
it  to  be  broken  up  ; and  broken  up  it  was.  The  pieces  went  here 
and  there  as  luck  took  them,  and  it  seemed  as  though  that  would 
be  the  end.  But  in  1827  a fickle  public  changed  its  mind  and 
desired  to  have  the  mischief  it  had  wrought  undone.  So  the  bits, 
as  far  as  they  were  discoverable,  were  put  together  again,  and  now 
one  can  see  the  reconstituted  remains,  obviously  incomplete  and 
very  thoroughly  “ restored,”  set  up  in  Dijon  Museum.  The 
recumbent  effigy  of  the  Duke,  a fine  alabaster  figure,  lies  on  a great 
marble  slab,  beneath  which  are  a row  of  canopied  niches  all  around 
with  “ mourners  ” standing  in  them.  There  were  ninety  originally ; 
only  forty  have  survived,  and  most  were  Claus  de  Werve’s  handi- 
work, but  in  spirit  and  style,  perhaps  also  in  design,  they  surely  go 
back  to  Sluter.  Such  “ mourners  ” represented  the  funeral  com- 
pany. They  are  already  present  on  the  monument  of  a bishop  (of 
the  year  1115)  in  St.  Hilary’s  at  Poitiers,*  where  they  stand  behind 
and  at  the  head  and  foot  of  the  defunct.  Later  they  were  placed 
at  a lower  level  round  the  sarcophagus,  as  for  instance  on  Bishop 
Hugo  de  Castellione’s  monument  at  St.  Bertrand  de  Comminges. 
But  Sluter’s  figures  mourn  as  never  stones  had  been  shaped  to 
mourn  before.  He  entered  into  the  romance  of  grief  and  sucked 
the  very  juice  out  of  it.  The  emotion  conveyed  resides  chiefly  in 
the  voluminous  drapery.  The  men  are  muffled  up  in  clothes,  and 

^ A.  Michel,  Hist,  de  I'Art  (Paris,  1907),  iii,  1,  pp.  394  ff.  Janin  Lomme  of  Tournay 
made  the  tomb  for  Charles  the  Noble  at  Pampeluna.  It  was  ordered  in  1416.  It  has 
mourners  like  those  on  Philip’s  tomb.  Charles  the  Noble’s  mother  was  Jeanne  of  France, 
sister  of  Charles  V and  Duke  Philip.  The  resemblance  is  thus  not  difficult  to  account  for. 
See  Gaz.  Beaux-Arts,  xl,  1908,  pp.  89  ff. 

^ R.  de  Fleury,  La  Messe,  vii,  p.  158,  pi.  596. 


32 


THE  FOUR  DUKHS 


it  is  the  clothes  that  talk.  Never  were  such  eloquent  clothes.  Yet 
there  are  living  bodies  within  them,  and  it  is  the  hidden  bodies  that 
vitalize  the  draperies.  All  this  was  a new  thing  upon  earth.  Gothic 
drapery  was  expressive  in  its  own  fashion,  but  not  in  this  fashion. 
It  expressed  things  external  to  the  figure  clothed,  not  emotions 
arising  within  it.  Jean  Sans  Peur’s  tomb  had  mourners  too, 
imitated  from  Philip’s,  and  most  of  them  carved  by  Jean  de  Huerta. 
They  also  went  astray  at  the  French  Revolution,  and  I fancy  the 
two  lots  were  mixed  together,  and  have  not  been  properly  dis- 
entangled since.  But  all  of  them  came  out  of  Sluter’s  brain.  All 
are  delightful : so  varied,  so  full  of  invention,  so  surprising,  so 
everlastingly,  almost  humorously,  fresh.  The  very  Duke  himself, 
to  mourn  whom  they  were  made,  might  have  chuckled  over  them 
-—but  enough  ! they  must  be  seen  and  seen  again,  not  described  ; 
moreover,  it  is  easy  to  see  them,  for  are  there  not  casts  of  them  in 
many  museums  ? — in  the  Victoria  and  Albert,  for  instance.  Five 
pre-war  francs,  I believe,  would  buy  a cast  of  one,  which  any 
wage-earner  in  these  days  can  afford. 

A fine  Gothic  church-portal,  such  as  those  we  considered  at 
Chartres,  was  normally  peopled,  on  either  hand  of  one  entering,  by 
a row  of  statues,  over  life-size,  standing  side  by  side  in  monumental 
dignity.  Later,  as  in  the  Celestins  in  Paris,  this  became  the  place 
for  portrait  figures  of  Founders,  who  down  to  Charles  V’s  time 
retained  much  of  the  dignity  of  pose  of  ancient  prophets.  The 
portal  of  Champmol  church  had  to  be  adorned,  and  Jean  de  Marville 
first,  Claas  Sluter  after  him,  were  charged  to  see  to  it.  Of  course, 
there  were  canopies  and  brackets  and  other  elaborate  decorative 
details  to  be  fashioned  in  profusion  as  well  as  the  statuary.  The 
Virgin  was  to  stand  on  the  central  pier  between  the  two  doors  ; the 
Duke  was  to  kneel  on  one  side,  the  Duchess  on  the  other,  each  with 
a patron  saint  standing  behind.  The  portraits  were  designed  and 
made  by  Sluter  between  1391  and  1394,  and  the  saints  and  Virgin 
were  his  also.  These  kneeling  donors  fixed  a new  type  of  funeral 
effigy.  Marble  personages  thenceforward  kept  coming  to  kneel 
in  churches  all  over  France  down  to  the  eighteenth  century,  when 
a good  many  of  them  were  sent  back  to  stone-yards.  How  Duke 
Philip’s  figure  escaped  the  iconoclasts  I cannot  say,  but  it  did  escape 
and  remains  one  of  the  finest  portrait  sculptures  anywhere  to  be 


THE  PUITS  DE  MOISE 


33 


seen.  The  Duchess  is  a failure  comparison,  and,  to  make 
matters  worse,  her  nose  and  a good  piece  more  have  been  chipped 
away.  But  no  one  would  look  at  her  anyhow,  with  that  beautiful 
St.  Catherine  close  behind,  so  graceful  and  insinuating.  No  wonder 
the  Virgin  turns  in  her  direction.  There  is  nothing  to  show  which 
way  the  Duke’s  eyes  are  looking.  It  is  all  very  remarkable,  but 
Sluter’s  chef  d’’ oeuvre  was  still  to  come. 

The  monastic  buildings  of  the  Chartreuse  of  Champmol,  the 
same  that  now  are  either  used  for  a mad-house  or  replaced  by 
others  so  employed,  were  built  round  a quadrangular  courtyard, 
with  a well  in  the  middle.  It  was  decided  to  mark  the  site  of  that 
well  by  a stone  crucifix,  which  should  stand  out  high  above  it,  and 
be  a fine  centre-piece.  In  1395  the  foundations  for  this  massive 
group  of  statuary  were  put  in.  That  was  six  years  after  Jean  de 
Marville’s  death,  so  he  had  no  hand  whatever  in  this  work.  Sluter 
laboured  at  it  from  1397  to  1400  with  the  help  of  his  nephew 
Nicolas  van  de  Werve  and  other  Flemings.  I gladly  copy  from 
Deshaisnes  (p.  519)  the  following  details.  Jean  Hust  in  1398-9 
carved  the  delicate  capitals  ; at  the  same  time  Sluter  and  his 
nephew  sculptured  the  figures  of  the  Virgin  and  Christ  for  the 
central  group,  whereof  only  the  torso  of  Christ  survives  (in  Dijon 
Museum).  In  1399-1401  they  made  most  of  the  other  figures 
which  were  to  stand  at  the  foot  of  the  cross,  and  Prindale  sculptured 
the  Magdalen.  All  these  have  been  destroyed.  Sluter  reserved 
for  his  own  hand  the  six  great  statues  of  Prophets  to  surround  the 
base.  Most  of  them  were  in  place  in  1402  and  Jean  Malouel  was 
painting  them.  It  is  this  great  base  which  has  fortunately  survived 
in  excellent  preservation.  The  names  of  the  Prophets  are  Moses, 
David,  Daniel,  Isaiah,  Zeehariah,  and  Jeremiah.  The  astonishing 
Moses  gave  his  name  to  the  whole  work — Puits  de  Moise. 

Few  mediaeval  forms  (except  in  the  architectural  framework) 
and  almost  nothing  of  the  mediaeval  spirit  are  here  discoverable. 
We  are  in  the  presenee  of  a new  ideal,  a new  art  epoeh,  and  the 
essentials  of  the  Renaissance  are  plainly  manifest.  It  has  often 
been  said  that  Michelangelo  would  not  have  disdained  these  figures. 
The  voluminous  draperies  are  of  course  not  what  an  Italian  would 
have  designed,  but  the  spirit  that  animates  them  is  the  spirit  of  the 
new  day — the  spirit  that  diseovered  new  continents,  that  plunged 


84 


THE  FOUR  DUKES 


joyously  into  the  romance  of  an  adventurous  life  and  of  adventurous 
thinking.  Here  too  is  the  love  of  life  expressed  in  stone — the  love 
of  this  earthly  human  life  of  ours  such  as  it  is,  for  better  or  worse, 
without  much  regard  for  another  in  some  ideal  regions  of  time  and 
space.  These  folk  are  all  immensely,  transcendently  human. 
Everything  about  them  is  emphatic.  Never  was  a head  balder  than 
Isaiah’s,  nor  a beard  more  patriarchally  ample  than  Moses’,  nor 
facial  expression  more  forceful  than  Daniel’s.  And  each  is  endowed 
with  an  all-compelling  dignity,  proper  to  the  great  event  they 
foresaw,  and  in  presence  of  which  they  stand. 

Thus,  in  sculpture  at  any  rate,  the  first  year  of  the  fifteenth 
century  is  marked  by  the  complete  expression  of  the  coming  ideal 
from  the  hand  of  the  first  important  innovating  genius  of  our  part 
of  the  world.  Sluter  was  the  Donatello  of  the  North,  and  was  almost 
as  great  as  Donatello.  Moreover,  in  actual  time  Sluter  was  ahead. 
1401,  when  he  was  carving  these  figures,  was  the  very  year  in 
which  the  youthful  Donatello  and  Brunelleschi  left  Florence  for 
that  important  visit  of  theirs  to  Rome.  It  was  the  new  spirit  whose 
breath  they  felt  that  drove  them  forth.  It  was  the  same  new  spirit 
that  had  already  kindled  so  mightily  the  imagination  of  Sluter. 
Bandol’s  ugly  miniature  was  one  of  the  first  signs  of  its  coming, ^ 
but  Bandol  was  not  great  enough  to  be  more  than  a kind  of  well- 
oiled  weathercock  that  manifests  the  direction  of  the  first  fitful 
puff  of  breeze  coming  from  a new  quarter.  Sluter  was  the  gale 
incarnate.  After  him  no  true  artist  could  be  satisfied  with  the 
old  conventions  and  formulae.  The  new  sculpture  had  come  into 
being.  The  new  painting  would  not  slumber  long.  Where  shall 
we  find  the  first  signs  of  its  awakening  ? In  the  breast  of  what 
painter,  what  school  of  the  North  will  it  quicken  ? Surely  the 
answer  cannot  be  far  to  seek. 

^ So  was  the  silver  head  of  St.  Frederiek  made  in  1362  for  St.  Saviour’s,  Utrecht,  by 
the  goldsmith  Elyas  Scerpswert. 


CHAPTER  III 


THE  HOURS  OF  CHANTILLY 

While  Sluter  and  his  assistants  were  thus  busy  at  Dijon,  the  seribes 
and  miniaturists  of  the  Dukes  of  Berry  and  Burgundy  were  pursuing 
the  even,  or  (if  that  glimpse  into  Jacquemart’s  studio  be  typieal) 
the  tumultuous,  tenor  of  their  way.  The  Duke  of  Burgundy  died 
in  1404,  but  the  Duke  of  Berry  eontinued  his  activities  a dozen 
years  longer,  and  it  is  work  done  for  him  that  need  now  alone 
concern  us.  With  the  knowledge  that  the  patient  research  of 
many  has  placed  at  the  disposal  of  all,  we  may  direct  our  attention 
at  once  to  two  manuscripts  and  only  two.  These  are  : 

1.  The  Tres  Riches  Heures  in  the  Library  at  Chantilly. 

2.  The  Tres  Belles  Heures  de  Notre  Dame,  which  was  divided 
into  three  main  parts  : 

{a)  In  Turin  Library,  with  which  it  was  burnt  in  1903. 

{b)  In  the  library  of  Prince  Trivulzio  at  Milan. 

(c)  In  the  library  of  Baron  Maurice  de  Rothschild,  and  a few 
leaves  in  the  Louvre. 

For  brevity  let  us  refer  to  these  two  manuscripts  as  the  Hours 
of  Chantilly  and  the  Hours  of  Turin  respectively.  It  will  be  more 
convenient  to  take  the  Hours  of  Chantilly  first,  though  the  other 
was  begun  long  before  it. 

When  the  Duke  of  Berry  died  in  his  Hotel  de  Nesle  at  Paris, 
on  June  15,  1416,  after  seventy-six  years  of  unceasing  labour  as 
patron  of  artists,  an  inventory  and  valuation  of  his  wonderful 
collections  were  made.  The  highest  valued  among  the  manuscripts 
were  two — the  Grandes  Heures  and  another,  but  their  magnificent 
gold  and  jewelled  bindings  were  included  in  the  estimate.  Third 
came  the  incomplete  and  unbound  quires  of  the  Tres  Riches  Heures, 
which  thus  in  fact,  so  far  as  the  actual  leaves  of  the  book  are 

35 


THE  HOURS  OF  CHANTILLY 


concerned,  was  placed  first  in  value  among  all  the  books.  It  is  this 
manuseript  we  have  now  to  study — the  last  and  finest  manuscript 
made  to  the  Duke’s  order,  and  incomplete  when  he  died.  Fortun- 
ately there  is  no  doubt  about  the  authorship,  for  the  inventory  of 
1416  deseribes  what  then  existed  as  “ plusieurs  cayers  d’une  tres 
riches  Heures  que  fasoient  Paul  et  ses  freres,  tres  richement  his- 
toriez  et  enluminez.”  Other  documents  inform  us  that  the  said 
brothers  were  three  in  number,  and  that  their  names  were  Pol, 
Jehannequin,  and  Herman.  They  were  nephews  of  Jean  Malouel, 
the  painter,  and  Malouel  was  their  surname ; Guelderland  was 
their  country  of  origin,  and  they  were  commonly  called  “ de 
Limbourg.”  It  is  probable,  therefore,  that  the  brothers  Malouel 
came  from  the  very  same  neighbourhood  as  those  other  brothers 
towards  whom  we  are  slowly  working  our  way — the  Van  Eyeks. 

In  1398  the  two  younger  brothers  Jehannequin  and  Herman, 
orphan  lads,  were  in  Paris,  apprenticed,  by  their  uncle’s  care,  to  a 
Flemish  goldsmith.  In  consequence  of  an  outbreak  of  plague,  they 
were  brought  away  by  order  of  the  Duke  of  Burgundy  and  were 
journeying  homeward,  when,  in  passing  through  Brussels,  they 
had  the  bad  luek  to  be  made  prisoners  of  war.  Six  months  they 
were  kept  in  eonfinement  till  the  painters  and  goldsmiths  of  Brussels, 
for  love  of  their  uncle,  obtained  their  release  on  parole  for  one  year, 
and  in  May  1400  the  Duke  of  Burgundy  kindly  paid  a ransom  for 
them.^  All  this  time  there  is  no  mention  of  the  eldest  brother  Pol. 
It  is  probable  that  he  was  then  spending  his  journeyman  days  in 
Italy.  By  what  stages  these  young  and  promising  artists  passed 
out  of  the  hands  of  the  Duke  of  Burgundy  into  those  of  the  Duke 
of  Berry  is  not  stated — possibly  on  the  death  of  the  former  in  1404. 
Thus  Pol  may  have  been  that  “ German  ” artist  in  the  employment 
of  the  latter  who  was  bridegroom  at  a wedding  in  1408  with  the 
daughter  of  a rich  but  protesting  bourgeois  of  Bourges,  whose 
parental  authority  was  overridden  by  the  Duke,  let  us  hope  to  the 
joy  of  two  lovers.  Ultimately  all  three  brothers,  by  whatever 
stages,  had  come  into  the  Duke  of  Berry’s  employment,  and  were 
working  under  the  direction  of  the  eldest,  Pol.  Attempts  have 
been  made  to  identify  their  earlier  efforts  in  this  and  the  other 

^ For  these  and  other  details  about  the  brothers  see  a paper  by  G.  Hulin  in  Bull,  de  la 
Soc.  d’Hist.  et  (TArcheol.  de  Gand,  1903,  with  references  there  to  other  authorities. 


THE  DE  LIMBOURG  BROTHERS 


37 


manuscript.  For  us  it  is  enough  that  the  Hours  of  Chantilly  was 
their  undoubted  work,  and  will  here  suffice  as  example  of  their 
accomplishment.  Of  course  we  have  only  to  consider  the  pages 
illuminated  for  the  Duke  of  Berry,  not  the  twenty -three  large  and 
thirty-eight  small  miniatures  added  between  1485  and  1489  by 
Jean  Colombe  to  complete  the  decoration  of  the  volume. ^ 

To  the  Limbourg  brothers  are  due  thirty-nine  large,  two  medium- 
sized, and  twenty-four  small  miniatures.  Only  a few  of  these  can 
we  here  pass  in  review. 

The  most  beautiful,  the  most  thoroughly  French  picture  in  the 
book  is  that  of  the  Coronation  of  the  Virgin.  At  the  first  glance 
we  recognize  its  affiliation  to  the  fine  Louvre  drawing  above  dis- 
cussed in  connexion  with  the  work  of  Jacquemart.  Here  is  less 
spaciousness,  but  the  same  swirling  curves  in  the  S-shaped  com- 
position, the  same  clustering  of  angels  into  clouds,  and  a yet  more 
perfect  sense  of  the  significance  of  line.  Surely  all  that  religious 
ecstasy  ever  imagined  of  virginal  grace  and  purity,  of  the  exaltation 
of  the  humble  and  meek,  finds  embodiment  on  this  incomparable 
page.  Details  may  remind  us  of  Italian  work — the  flames  on  brows, 
some  facial  types,  and  the  like — but  these  are  trifles.  In  the 
presenee  of  this  picture  we  may  think  of  Fra  Angelico,  but  only 
because  the  same  attractive  ideal  inspired  both  artists.  There  is 
no  community  of  school  uniting  them.  What  we  here  behold  is 
the  outcome  of  a pure  French  tradition,  following  a direct  line  of 
development,  drawn  by  an  artist  of  equipment  superior  to  his 
predecessors.  It  is  the  work  of  one  who  may  have  studied  in  Italy, 
and  there  acquired  no  little  technical  knowledge  of  colours  and 
technicalities,  but  whose  ideals  had  been  formed  at  home  in  the 
school  or  atmosphere  of  Jacquemart,  and  who  was  strong  enough 
to  maintain  them  unimpaired  even  in  the  land  of  Giotto.  That  he 
gathered  many  a technical  hint  from  the  Giottists  is  proved  by 
several  of  his  designs  of  the  accustomed  round  of  religious  subjects, 
especially  in  the  case  of  architeetural  accessories.  The  Temple 
up  whose  steps  the  Virgin  is  mounting  in  the  “ Purification  ” is 
taken  straight  from  Taddeo  Gaddi’s  fresco  in  the  Barroncelli  ehapel 
at  Sante  Croce  in  Florence,  and  so  are  the  general  composition 
and  even  some  individual  figures.  The  same  building  reappears 

^ All  the  illuminated  pages  have  been  well  reproduced  by  Paul  Durrieu  (Paris,  1904). 


38 


THE  HOURS  OF  CHANTILLY 


in  other  miniatures  by  our  artist  and  was  often  copied  in  Italy. 
It  would  be  a current  type  in  Italian  studios  when  he  was  a journey- 
man.^ A thoroughly  Italian  decorative  landscape  also  appears  in 
the  Visitation.  The  crowded  Adoration  of  the  Magi  reminds  us 
of  the  compositions  of  Gentile  da  Fabriano.  In  the  Descent  from 
the  Cross,  the  Virgin  and  so  much  of  the  figure  to  the  left  of  her 
as  is  visible  are  copied  out  of  the  great  Crucifixion  fresco  in  the 
Spanish  chapel  in  Florence.  A careful  hunt  might  show  other 
correspondencies,  but  these  are  enough  to  prove  Pol’s  presence  as 
a student  on  the  banks  of  Arno.  M.  de  Mely  thinks  that  the  nude 
in  the  Zodiac  picture  was  copied  from  the  Three  Graces  at  Siena, 
but  I believe  that  group  had  not  been  discovered  in  Pol’s  Italian 
days,  and  the  resemblance  is  not  convincing.  For  its  date  and 
country  the  painted  nude  is  indeed  somewhat  remarkable,  but  less 
so  than  the  equally  nude  full-length  figure  of  Adam  in  Cluny 
Museum  from  St.  Denis,  which  dates  from  the  fourteenth  century. 
The  landscape  backgrounds  of  most  of  the  religious  subjects  present 
no  special  novelty.  Thus,  behind  the  Visitation,  the  contorted  hills 
are  of  the  very  same  type  which  we  saw  in  Broederlam’s  paintings 
and  might  cite  in  countless  other  pictures  of  the  period.  It  is  all 
the  more  surprising  to  be  faced  on  the  pages  of  the  Calendar  and 
a few  others  with  landscapes  of  the  most  startling  realism.  How 
is  this  to  be  accounted  for  ? Surely  if  the  impulse  came  from  the 
artist  himself  it  would  have  been  apparent  in  such  a picture  as  that 
of  the  Garden  of  Eden  ; but  no  less  vivid  representation  of  a 
real  garden  could  be  devised.  The  best  solution  of  this  question 
seems  to  be  that  the  landscapes  were  directly  ordered  by  the  Duke. 
Two  of  them  are  actually  views  out  of  his  windows  in  the  Hotel 
de  Nesle,  looking  up  to  the  island  of  the  Cite  or  across  the  Seine  to 
the  Louvre.  Is  it  not  probable  that  the  Duke  said  to  his  artist, 
“ Paint  me  those  views  as  I see  them  from  this  window,”  and  that 
so  it  was  done  ? Most  of  the  other  landscapes  contain  the  representa- 
tions of  chateaux  built  by  the  Duke,  or  the  chief  cities  within  his 
governance.  Curiously  enough  in  the  case  of  some,  such  as  Mehun- 
sur-Yevre,  while  the  castle  is  drawn  with  as  much  correct  archi- 
tectural detail  as  was  then  possible,  the  landscape  behind  it  is 

1 In  the  Louvre  is  a contemporary  drawing,  copied  from  Taddeo’s  fresco,  which  might 
possibly  have  come  to  France  in  Pol  de  Limbourg’s  luggage. 


PLATE  III 


1.  CLAAS  SLUTEP,.  PUITS  DE  MOISE  (1395-1-103). 
DI.JON.— p.  33. 


2.  SCHOOL  OF  SLUTER.  MOURN  l-;US  ON 
T05IR  OF  JEAN  SANS  PEUR.— p.  31. 


3.  DE  LLMBOURG.  CIIANITLT.Y  HOURS  1.  THE  CITI-;  OF  P.UUS.  CHANTILLY  HOURS 

(lol.  OOv.). — p.  37.  (fol.  (jv.). — p.  38. 


\To  face  i>age  38. 


•■A 


■:V 


?r, 


! 


^1 


THE  PARIS  LANDSCAPES 


39 


thoroughly  old-fashioned,  corkscrew  hills  and  all,  that  being  the 
only  kind  of  landscape  the  artist  could  invent.  For  the  castle, 
no  doubt,  he  had  an  architect’s  drawing  to  follow.  The  best 
landscapes  are  those  in  which  no  religious  subject  is  involved,  but 
where  the  view  itself  is  the  subject.  The  Mont  St.  Michel  is  only 
so  far  an  exception  that  the  extremely  well-dressed  archangel  and 
his  spiky  dragon  are  introduced  into  the  sky,  but  the  view  itself 
has  been  directly  drawn  from  nature.  A further  indication  that 
these  views  were  “ orders,”  not  an  original  idea  of  the  painter,  is. 
that  they  are  by  different  hands.  Professor  Hulin  de  Loo  has 
separated  them.  Two  of  them  present  a marked  opposition.  The 
artist  who  painted  April,  May,  and  August  (with  Dourdan,  Riom, 
and  ;^tampes  for  background)  delighted  in  the  noble  companies  in 
front,  and  was  not  interested  in  the  landscapes  in  which  he  had 
to  place  them  ; he  was  contented  to  make  them  decorative  ; but 
they  bored  him.  He  cannot  possibly  have  painted  more  than  the 
cottagers  in  February.  The  charming  snow-scene  was  evidently 
studied  with  care  and  in  detail  from  nature  by  another  artist.. 
That  may  have  been,  probably  was,  the  man  who  did  the  views 
from  the  Hotel  de  Nesle,  obviously  with  great  enjoyment.  To  the 
best  of  his  powers  he  observed  Nature  closely  : witness  his  group 
of  birds  behind  the  sower  and  the  reflections  of  people  in  the  river 
from  off  the  high  bank.  These  matters  did  not  bore  him  at  all ; 
if  one  of  the  brothers  was  responsible  for  the  landscape  novelties, 
it  was  he,  though  I suspect  him  to  have  been  responsive  rather  than 
responsible.  It  is  to  him  that  we  owe  the  really  wonderful  picture 
of  the  Death  of  the  Wild  Boar  in  the  Forest  of  Vincennes,  facing 
the  calendar  for  December.  It  has  been  reproduced  and  praised 
often  enough.  Most  readers  will  remember  the  white  castle  towers 
— towers  of  the  Castle  in  which  the  Duke  of  Berry  had  been  born 
seventy-six  years  before— standing  out  above  the  beechen  forest, 
which  is  brown  with  withered  leaves.  In  the  midst  of  an  open 
space  the  dogs  have  brought  down  their  quarry.  A huntsman 
winds  his  horn.  The  other  two  are  attending  to  the  dogs.  The 
selfsame  group  of  boar  and  hounds  appears  in  a sketch-book  in 
Bergamo  Town  Library,  attributed  to  Giovannino  de’  Grassi  {ob.. 
1398),  which  once  belonged  to  Lorenzo  Lotto.  Another  sketch- 
book by  the  same  artist  belongs  to  Baron  Edmund  de  Rothschild,, 


40 


THE  HOURS  OF  CHANTILLY 


and  contains  similar  dogs  and  hunting  incidents.  Here,  then,  is 
where  Pol  de  Limbourg  (if  it  was  Pol)  got  his  composition.  Both 
cannot  be  copied  from  some  common  original  because  of  the  similar 
beasts  in  the  Rothschild  book,  and  an  Italian  draughtsman  could 
hardly  have  had  access  to  the  Freneh  manuscript  before  1485,  which 
is  much  too  late  for  the  style  of  the  sketch-books.  A fifteenth 
century  Florentine  engraving  ^ (Passavant  V,  p.  190,  No.  104)  con- 
tains a group  of  bears  and  dogs  in  some  way  related  to  the  foregoing. 
It  may  be  mentioned  that  the  Bergamo  sketch-book  also  contains 
drawings  of  ladies  which  show  the  kind  of  design  common  in  the 
school  by  which  the  de  Limbourgs  were  influeneed.^ 

In  1416,  then,  the  Duke  of  Berry  died,  and  work  on  the  manu- 
script suddenly  stopped.  Half-finished  pictures  were  left  as  they 
were,  and  among  them  one  depicting  the  Castle  of  Saumur.  The 
architecture  was  drawn,  but  not  the  landscape,  which  Colombe 
completed  seventy  years  later.  The  suggestion  thus  arises  that  in 
the  case  of  some  of  these  distant  ehateaux,  a purely  architectural 
draughtsman  was  employed,  and  that  the  de  Limbourgs  only  put 
in  the  surroundings.  It  is,  of  course,  possible.  We  may  recall 
the  tantalizing  Jacques  Coene  of  Bruges.  He  was  a miniaturist, 
and  if  we  could  only  find  the  Bible  moralisee  which  was  paid  for  in 
1404,  and  which  had  been  painted  by  Coene,  Imbert  Stainer,  and 
Hancelin  de  Hagenau,  we  should  be  able  to  judge  how  far  the 
evidently  important  position  Coene  held  was  justified  by  his 
achievements.  Count  Paul  Durrieu  = claims  that  Coene  and 
Hancelin  introduced  naturalistic  backgrounds  before  the  de  Lim- 
bourgs. It  may  have  been  so  ; we  have  no  proof.  But  Coene 
was  certainly  an  architectural  draughtsman.  The  Cathedral  of 
Milan  was  founded  in  1386.  In  1399  the  chapter  made  a contract 
with  Coene  and  another,  apparently  to  direct  the  work.  He  was 
“ designare  ecclesiam  de  fundamento  usque  ad  summitatem  ” — 

1 B.  xiii,  p.  145,  No.  8.  A copy  of  it  is  reproduced  in  P.  Kristeller’s  Florentinische 
Zierstucke,  Berlin,  1909. 

2 I am  told  that  an  Austrian  lady  has  written  about  the  Bergamo  sketch-book  ridiculing 
the  idea  that  the  de  Limbourgs  can  have  been  indebted  to  it.  I have  not  seen  her  publication. 
I published  the  drawing  in  the  Burlington  Magazine  (Dec.  1910,  p.  149)  and  indicated  its 
connexion  with  the  Hours  of  Chantilly.  The  Monatshefte  fur  Kunstwissenschaft  (vi,  438  ff.) 
afterwards  republished  them  without  acknowledgment. 

® Revue  de  VArt,  April  10,  1904 — an  important  artiele. 


JACQUES  COENE  41 

to  design  the  church  from  foundation  to  summit.  He  must  have 
been  a proved  architectural  draughtsman  to  be  thus  employed  ; 
perhaps  it  was  only  as  such  that  he  was  employed. ^ The  engage- 
ment did  not  last  long  and  Coene  was  back  in  Paris  in  time  to  under- 
take the  aforesaid  Bible.  Of  course  he  was  not  the  only  arehi- 
tectural  draughtsman  of  his  date.  It  is  probable  that  we  have  the 
work  of  another  in  the  Hours  of  Chantilly. 

With  the  further  activities  of  the  de  Limbourgs  we  have  nothing 
to  do.  Their  interest  for  us  centres  in  the  landscapes  they  painted 
in  the  Hours  of  Chantilly  and  the  fact  that  all  of  these  date  from 
before  June  15,  1416,  when  the  Duke  of  Berry  died.  Landscape 
art  had  been  born,  and  these  landscapes  were  so  good  that  a hundred 
years  later  the  artists  employed  on  the  Grimani  Breviary  could  do 
no  better  than  to  copy  them.  They  are  not  imaginative  land- 
scapes. They  open  no  door  into  a world  of  romanee,  exeept  to  us 
moderns  for  whom  the  facts  of  the  past  appear  romantic  in  com- 
parison with  the  present.  The  important  point  about  them  is  their 
veraeity  and  that  they  yet  deeorate  the  page.  Of  course  they  gain 
greatly  from  age.  They  enable  us  to  look  at  the  Paris  of  1416,  and 
we  are  naturally  more  thankful  than  critical.  Yet  be  as  eritical 
as  we  may  we  cannot  decry  their  charm.  The  eyes  of  men  had  at 
last  been  opened  to  the  beauty  of  the  actual  world — the  faee  of 
nature.  It  was  eertain  that  they  would  never  again  for  long  together 
be  closed  to  it.  Art  had  won  a new  domain,  but  to  whom  was 
this  conquest  due  ? To  this  question  we  shall  seek  an  answer  in 
the  folloAving  ehapter. 


1 See  Hulin,  loc.  cit.,  p.  23. 


CHAPTER  IV 


THE  HOURS  OF  TURIN 

The  Hours  of  Turin,  that  important  manuscript  which  I have 
already  mentioned  as  divided  into  three  parts  in  the  Turin,  Trivulzio, 
and  Maurice  de  Rothsehild  Libraries,  now  claims  our  close  attention. 
It  was  begun  for  the  Duke  of  Berry,  the  earliest  set  of  miniatures 
in  it  being  the  handiwork  of  the  artist  who  painted  the  Parement 
de  Narbonne  in  the  Louvre.  Its  prineipal  pages  are  eomposed  on 
a uniform  design.  The  border  is  the  usual  foliated  Gothie  affair 
of  French  fourteenth  century  type,  and  this  appears  to  have  been 
made  by  the  scribe  who  wrote  the  text  or  some  other  eraftsman 
working  in  the  scriptorium  and  completing  each  page  with  its  border 
as  it  was  written.  The  leaves  were  then  turned  over  to  the  minia- 
turist. His  business  was  to  add  (on  the  chief  pages)  a large  minia- 
ture at  the  top,  being  of  the  full  width  of  the  text  and  taller  than 
wide,  also  a decorative  initial  letter  and  a wide  short  miniature  at 
the  foot  of  the  page.  Often  the  initials  and  foot  miniatures  were 
done  by  an  assistant  while  the  big  miniature  was  by  his  master. 
The  “ Parement  ” master  first  got  under  way,  and  decorated  a 
certain  number  of  leaves — he  and  his  helpers — at  a date  which  may 
be  guessed  to  have  been  somewhere  in  the  eighties  of  the  fourteenth 
century.  In  this  and  all  else  about  the  division  of  the  work  between 
different  hands  I shall  follow  the  eonclusions  of  Professor  Hulin  de 
Loo,  as  stated  in  his  elaborate  monograph  entitled  the  Heures  de 
Milan.  It  was  published  with  reproductions  of  the  miniatures  in 
the  part  of  the  manuscript  which  now  belongs  to  Prince  Trivulzio. 
His  text  takes  account,  in  an  appendix,  of  important  artieles  by 
Count  Paul  Durrieu  in  the  Revue  archeologique  (Paris,  1910,  ii, 
pp.  30  ff.  and  246  ff.).  It  was  Count  Durrieu  who,  in  1902,  first  ealled 
prominent  attention  to  the  Turin  manuscript  by  publishing  a set 

42 


43 


THE  HOURS  OF  TURIN  (MILAN) 

of  reproductions  of  its  illustrated  pages  and  of  those  in  the  Louvre. 
Little  did  he  then  suppose  that  within  a couple  of  years  the  original 
would  have  been  utterly  destroyed  by  fire  and  his  reproductions 
would  be  its  only  monument.'  It  is  unnecessary  here  to  repeat 
references  to  all  the  literature  on  the  subject ; they  will  be  found 
duly  set  out  in  Hulin’s  work.  The  pages  of  the  Maurice  de 
Rothschild  section  have  not  been  published,  but  they  are  not 
important  for  the  purposes  of  the  present  chapter. 

The  pages  decorated  by  the  “ Parement  ” artist  and  a couple 
more  which  betray  other  hands  are  all  the  work  that  was  done  in 
the  fourteenth  century.  In  the  early  years  of  the  fifteenth  century 
(c.  1402-5)  another  hand  was  given  a turn.  He  was  a good  enough 
painter  of  the  school,  but  many  of  his  miniatures  were  retouched 
all  over  some  ten  or  a dozen  years  later,  while  the  same  fate  over- 
took the  pictures  added  by  a third  hand  working,  so  Hulin  says, 
between  the  years  1409  and  1413.  By  that  time  the  book  was 
getting  pretty  old-fashioned,  and  by  no  means  up  to  the  level  of 
what  the  de  Limbourgs  could  do.  With  the  exception  of  the  work 
in  it  by  the  “ Parement  ” artist,  it  contained  nothing  first-rate, 
whilst  the  third  hand  was  of  far  from  outstanding  merit. 

It  may  be  suspected  that  when  the  Duke  ordered  the  Hours  of 
Chantilly,  it  was  to  take  the  place  for  which  this  earlier  volume 
had  originally  been  intended.  What,  however,  was  no  longer  good 
enough  for  the  magnificent  Duke  was  a first-class  treasure  for 
anyone  else,  and  it  was  accordingly  taken  over  by  Robinet 
d’Estampes,  guardian  of  the  Duke’s  jewels  and  books,  in  exchange 
for  another  manuscript.  This  happened  in  1412.  The  new  owner 
divided  it  into  two  parts  : the  first,  being  far  advanced  toward 
completion,  he  kept ; the  second  he  got  rid  of.  The  decoration  of 
the  first  part  was  forthwith  completed  by  two  artists  who  do  not 
concern  us.  This  is  the  portion  now  belonging  to  Baron  Maurice  de 
Rothschild.  The  second  part  passed  into  the  ownership  of  Duke 
William  of  Bavaria,  who  was  likewise  Count  of  Hainault  and 
Holland  and  nephew  of  the  Duke  of  Berry.  The  important  date  of 
this  purchase  is  estimated  by  Hulin  at  about  the  end  of  1414  or  the 
beginning  of  the  following  year.  As  the  Duke  of  Bavaria  died 

' Except  a few  miniatures  reproduced  in  the  Gazette  des  Beaux-Arts  (1903,  vol.  xxix),  pro- 
bably from  the  same  negatives,  but  much  better  reproduced  than  in  the  complete  publication. 


44 


THE  HOURS  OF  TURIN 


May  31,  1417,  whatever  was  done  to  the  manuscript  for  him  was 
done  within  narrow  limits  of  time. 

We  may  here  at  once  observe  that  the  most  remarkable  feature 
of  the  miniatures  added  for  the  Bavarian  Duke  was  the  landscape 
element  in  them.  Thus  we  find  landscapes  painted  here  within  the 
years  1415-17,  the  only  other  set  of  about  the  same  date  being 
those  done  by  the  de  Limbourgs  in  the  Hours  of  Chantilly  before 
June  15,  1416,  when  the  Duke  of  Berry  died.  Both  sets  were  there- 
fore approximately  contemporary,  and  there  is  no  prima  facie  reason 
for  attributing  one  set  to  an  earlier  date  than  the  other.  Hulin 
points  out  that  Duke  William  was  politically  busy  in  France,  helping 
to  make  the  peace  between  the  Houses  of  Burgundy  and  Orleans, 
which  was  concluded  September  4,  1414,  and  that  it  was  probably 
then  that  he  bought  his  manuscript.  He  got  it  from  the  Duke  of 
Berry’s  librarian  ; it  is  therefore  highly  probable  that  at  the  same 
time  the  new  landscapes  were  spoken  of,  and  the  subject  of  land- 
scape painting  may  have  been  discussed  with  the  artistic  Duke  his 
uncle.  Internal  evidence  alone  can  decide  to  which  group  of 
naturalistic  landscapes  priority  is  to  be  conceded.  Why  should 
the  Duke  of  Bavaria  on  a visit  to  France  have  purchased  a manu- 
script in  which  the  text  and  borders  were  complete  but  the  spaces 
for  miniatures  vacant?  Obviously  because  he  had  a miniaturist 
ready  to  hand  who  could  paint  them.  If  it  had  not  been  so  he 
would  surely  have  purchased  a finished  manuscript.  If  he  had 
his  artist  prepared  it  was  because  he  had  already  employed  him  or 
seen  what  he  could  do.  Nothing  is  more  likely  than  that  he  had  a 
specimen  of  his  work  with  him  to  “ put  the  nose  out  of  joint  ” of 
his  rich  and  magnificent  uncle,  as  is  the  kindly  way  with  art-patrons. 

But  let  us  examine  the  miniatures  which  were  actually  painted 
for  the  Duke  of  Bavaria  and  see  whither  they  lead  us.  In  the 
first  instance  we  need  regard  only  the  landscapes,  whereof  there 
are  four  of  outstanding  merit  and  beauty.  In  the  first,  small 
boats  are  sailing  on  the  choppy  waters  of  a river-estuary  ; a city, 
crowned  by  a stately  castle,  rises  from  its  margin,  and  hills  roll 
away  up-stream  into  the  distance.  The  saintly  legend  illustrated 
is  of  no  account;  the  landscape  is  the  subject.  A second  example 
is  the  background  behind  the  Betrayal,  with  a fanciful  picture  of 
Jerusalem  in  the  midst,  rather  faint  in  the  oncoming  twilight, 


THE  DUKE  OF  BAVARIA’S  LANDSCAPES 


45 


and  relieved  against  a splendid  sunset  sky,  obviously  studied  from 
nature.  Here  is  not  merely  a catalogue  of  details  visible,  but  a 
notable  effect  of  light,  beheld,  enjoyed,  remembered,  and  set  down. 
The  third,  no  less  remarkable,  is  a scene  crowded  with  people  and 
commemorating  a historical  event.  Two  years  after  he  had 
laboured  to  compose  the  differences  of  his  quarrelling  relations  the 
same  Duke  of  Bavaria  went  to  England  in  May  and  June  1416  to 
assist  in  making  peace  between  England  and  France  after  the 
campaign  of  Agincourt.  On  his  way  back  he  made  a vow  to  Notre 
Dame  de  Poke  near  Veere  in  Zeeland,  crossed  the  sea  in  twenty 
hours,  safely  landed,  and  forthwith  accomplished  his  vow.  Here 
he  and  his  suite  are  seen  safely  ashore,  met  by  Jacqueline,  the 
Duke’s  daughter,  and  her  ladies. ^ The  tower  of  Veere  is  in  the 
distance ; waves  are  breaking  on  the  long  curving  line  of  shore  ; 
there  are  beached  ships,  sailors  at  work,  and  other  boats  in  the 
offing.  The  very  spirit  of  the  actual  joyous  world  is  expressed — 
a fine  summer  day,  a sky  bright  with  harmless  clouds,  a pleasant 
breeze,  laughing  waters,  and  the  whole  wrought  into  an  excellent 
pictorial  unity.  It  is  an  “ effect  ” once  more.  These  three  land- 
scapes, alas!  vanished  in  the  flames  that  consumed  the  Turin 
Library  so  soon  after  their  importance  had  been  pointed  out,  and 
before  most  of  us,  who  would  so  greatly  have  cared,  had  occasion 
to  set  eyes  on  them. 

The  fourth  and  artistically  finest  of  the  landscapes  fortunately 
still  survives  in  the  Trivulzio  Library  at  Milan.  This  is  not  one 
of  the  large  miniatures,  but  a small  one  at  the  foot  of  a page.  Hulin 
has  published  an  enlargement  of  it,  and  it  evidently  would  not 
suffer  by  being  even  further  magnified.  Two  small  figures  in  front 
depict  the  Baptism  of  Christ,  but  here  again  these  are  a m.ere  excuse. 
The  real  subject  is  the  landscape,  and  how  surpassingly  fine  it  is  ! 
If  one  was  to  be  spared,  surely  this  is  the  one  we  must  all  have 
chosen.  It  is  another  river-view,  not  now  at  the  mouth,  but  well 
up-stream.  There  is  a castle  on  one  shore  and  a few  buildings  on 
the  other,  but  it  is  the  river  itself  with  its  pleasant  windings,  its 
wooded  banks,  its  mysterious  and  delightful  distance — above  all 

^ Another  interpretation  of  the  event  depicted  has  been  suggested,  but  is  not  generally 
accepted.  It  rests  upon  the  disputed  likeness  of  one  of  the  horsemen  to  the  Duke  of 
Touraine. 

5 


46 


THE  HOURS  OF  TURIN 


it  is  the  mirror  surface  of  the  water,  and  the  light  reflected  from  it, 
brightest  furthest  away,  that  gives  to  this  little  picture  so  complete 
a charm.  The  river  disappears  round  a corner,  and  we  see  no 
more  of  it,  but  further  off  we  can  yet  trace  where  it  must  be  winding 
in  the  valley  whose  remoter  intricacies  are  suggested  rather  than 
depicted.  Away  off  there,  and  all  within  a space  that  can  be 
covered  by  the  top  quarter  of  a penny  postage  stamp,  are  hills 
behind  hills,  a windmill  against  the  sky  on  one  side,  another  castle 
on  the  other,  and  all  manner  of  bewitching  intricacies  of  complex 
natural  form,  such  as  Turner  knew  how  to  suggest  by  a magic  that 
seemed  peculiarly  his  own,  till  we  found  it  already  practised  here 
400  years  before  him.  Foreground  details  of  rock  and  stone,  bird, 
bush,  and  timber  are  no  less  carefully  studied  from  nature  ; yet 
with  all  this  accuracy  of  detail,  almost  scientific,  the  artistic  unity 
of  the  whole  is  preserved,  and  we  are  forced  to  feel  the  impression 
of  that  unity  first,  before  we  can  let  our  eyes  delight  in  the  factors 
composing  it.  The  de  Limbourg  landscapes,  even  the  best  of 
them,  are  not  for  a moment  comparable  to  any  of  these.  They  are 
carefully  transcribed  : these  are  created.  Here  is  a truly  original 
artist  looking  for  the  first  time  among  men  on  the  face  of  nature, 
realizing  her  beauty,  and  making,  not  nature,  but  the  beauty  of 
nature  the  subject  of  his  art.  Between  this  man  and  the  de 
Limbourgs  there  is  no  comparison.  They  are  mere  executants,  a 
kind  of  photographers  mechanically  opening  to  us  a view  into  the 
past ; but  this  man  is  a great  originating  genius,  who  shows  us  the 
Nature  of  no  particular  date,  but  that  is  always  with  us  and  in 
the  hearts  of  those  that  love  her.  This  is  the  Nature  that  was  in 
his  own  heart,  that  had  been  transformed  there,  molten  and  recast 
there  into  a vision  of  beauty  tied  to  no  place  or  day  but  remaining 
lovely  for  all  men  and  all  time. 

Who  was  this  man  ? With  one  voice  those  who  have  right 
to  an  opinion  replied  (till  Friedlander  voiced  a contrary  opinion) 
Hubert  van  Eyck  and  no  other.  The  painter  of  the  Ghent  altar- 
piece  and  the  Richmond  Three  Maries,  he  and  he  alone  at  this  time 
can  be  seriously  thought  of  in  connexion  with  such  a masterpiece. 
Of  course  these  were  not  his  first  efforts.  Years  of  experience  must 
have  preceded  so  complete  a mastery.  The  de  Limbourgs  made 
no  such  experiments.  What  their  ideas  of  landscape  were  is  shown 


HUBERT  VAN  EYCK 


47 


in  many  a page  of  the  Chantilly  Hours.  On  some  they  even  mix 
the  old  corkscrew  hills  with  bits  of  naturalistic  scenery.  I suggest 
that  when  the  Duke  of  Bavaria  went  to  France  in  1414,  he  may 
have  taken  with  him  an  example  or  examples  of  Hubert’s  landscape 
and  showed  them  to  the  Duke  of  Berry  in  Paris.  The  Duke  with  his 
keen  artistic  appreciation  at  once  perceived  their  merit.  He  sent 
for  Pol  de  Limbourg,  showed  them  to  him,  and  then,  pointing  out 
of  the  window  to  the  Louvre  across  the  Seine  and  the  Cite  further 
round,  said,  “ Paint  me  those  views  like  this.”  Thus  I conceive  the 
Chantilly  landscapes  to  have  been  inspired,  unless,  indeed,  Hubert 
himself  was  of  the  party.  In  no  case  can  the  de  Limbourgs  have 
been  the  originators  and  Hubert  the  follower.  The  man  who 
painted  this  wonderful  river  scene,  the  like  of  which  had  never 
been  imagined  before,  can  have  been  indebted  to  no  one  less  great 
than  himself  for  the  idea.  He  painted  thus  from  the  forceful  impulse 
of  a new  ideal  rising  within  him,  and  that  new  ideal  was  a part  of  the 
great  power  that  was  destined  in  a few  generations  to  turn  the 
whole  world  upside  down,  and  not  merely  to  revolutionize  art. 

By  the  same  artist  as  these  four  landscapes,  whom  I shall  hence- 
forward speak  of  as  Hubert  van  Eyck,  are  other  no  less  remarkable 
miniatures  in  the  precious  manuscript.  Turn  to  the  large  miniature 
on  the  same  page  as  this  little  river  landscape.  It  depicts  the  birth 
of  St.  John  Baptist  as  taking  place  in  the  bedchamber  of  a Flemish 
palace.  Here  for  the  first  time  is  an  interior  drawn  with  some 
approach  to  correct  perspective.  We  might  have  called  attention 
to  the  remarkable  perspective  in  the  river  landscape  which  none 
of  the  de  Limbourg  views  even  distantly  approximate,  but  the 
novelty  is  better  expressed  in  this  beautiful  interior.  More  remark- 
able still  is  the  sense  of  atmosphere  in  the  room  and  the  gradations 
of  light.  A door  is  open  into  a passage  and  the  eye  travels  back 
along  that  into  and  across  another  room  behind.  There  are 
people  in  these  distances,  and  the  light  falls  upon  or  between  them, 
giving  the  complete  illusion  of  depth  and  distance.  Peter  de  Hoogh 
over  two  hundred  years  later  would  not  have  attained  a com- 
pleter illusion.  Moreover,  room  and  passage  contain  furnishings 
and  fittings — tables,  benches,  three-legged  chairs,  spinning-wheel, 
cushions,  dinanderie,  and  what  not — all  charmingly  and  veraciously 
rendered.  That,  however,  from  the  point  of  view  of  art  is  nothing 


48 


THE  HOURS  OF  TURIN 


and  less  than  nothing.  What  does  matter  is  the  unity  of  pic- 
torial effect,  the  integral  manner  in  which  all  these  details  are 
wrought  together  to  a common  co-operating  effect  of  beauty.  If 
no  such  chamber-interior  had  ever  been  depicted  before,  another 
extraordinarily  like  it  was  to  be  forthcoming  a few  years  later.  I 
refer  to  the  room  in  which  the  Arnolfini  pair  stand  in  the  National 
Gallery  picture  by  John  van  Eyck.  It  is  not  the  same  room,  but 
room  and  furniture  are  of  similar  style  and  both  are  transfused  by 
the  same  admirable  illumination.  If  Hubert  van  Eyck  had  not 
solved  the  problem  as  he  did  in  this  miniature  and  taught  his  secret 
to  his  younger  brother,  John  would  not  have  painted  the  Arnolfini 
interior  as  he  did.  The  de  Limbourg  interior  within  which  the 
Duke  of  Berry  takes  his  New  Year’s  feast  is  a far  less  excellent 
painting,  though  very  decorative. 

The  miniature  that  illustrates  the  Vigils  of  the  Dead  introduces 
us  into  the  choir  of  a Gothic  church,  well  drawn  for  its  date,  but 
with  the  figures  of  men  and  women  on  much  too  large  a relative 
scale.  A similar  church-interior,  but  taken  from  the  nave,  appears 
in  the  panel  at  Berlin  in  which  a relatively  colossal  Virgin  is  standing 
with  the  Child  in  her  arms.  Hulin  records  that  the  type  of  archi- 
tecture is  Burgundian  ; unfortunately  the  actual  church  has  not 
been  identified.^  The  Berlin  picture  is  by  Hubert,  and  perhaps 
not  much  later  in  date  than  the  miniature,  or  it  is  a copy  by  John 
van  Eyck  after  a lost  original. 

We  need  not  delay  over  the  Finding  of  the  Three  Crosses  by 
St.  Helena,  which  would  only  confirm  all  that  has  been  thus  far 
set  down,  but  we  cannot  dismiss  without  a word  the  large  miniature 
of  the  Virgin  surrounded  by  all  the  Holy  Virgins  (omnes  sanctce 
virgines)  or  the  yet  more  important  little  miniature  at  the  foot  of 
the  page.  The  former  is  delightful  for  the  youthful  sweetness  and 
gentleness  of  its  types — a characteristic  which  we  shall  hereafter 
find  differentiating  Hubert’s  Virgins  and  Babes  from  John’s.  At 
the  foot  of  the  page  similar  but  more  numerous  saintesses  are 
advancing  in  a landscape  toward  a little  hill  where  the  Lamb  stands 
in  a burst  of  golden  rays.  It  is  the  selfsame  composition  which 

1 When,  however,  he  suggests  that  the  choir  in  miniature  and  picture  are  the  same 
and  taken  from  the  same  point  of  view,  I am  unable  to  follow  him.  They  are  similar,  but 
taken  from  different  points  of  view,  and  the  two  apses  are  different  in  design. 


HUBERT’S  ASSISTANTS 


49 


was  more  elaborately  wrought  out  in  the  great  Ghent  altar-piece 
of  the  Adoration  of  the  Lamb.  The  more  elaborate  version,  how- 
ever, loses  something  of  the  sweet  simplicity  so  beautifully  shared 
by  all  in  the  earlier  bevy  of  maidens. 

Finally  this  page  is  notable  for  the  new  type  of  border  by  which 
it  is  surrounded.  The  painter  has  almost  entirely  erased  the 
ordinary  foliated  Gothic  border,  already  drawn  on  the  vellum  before 
it  came  into  his  hands,  and  has  substituted  for  it  an  elaborate  leafy 
scroll-work  on  a much  larger  scale,  including  a polecat,  a monkey, 
a peacock,  an  angel,  and  a dragon.  Where  did  he  get  the  idea  for 
this  ? Obviously  from  Italy — a country  the  artist  may  have  already 
visited.  Such  borders  were  common  in  fourteenth  century  Italian 
manuscripts,  examples  of  which  must  have  been  accessible  in  many 
libraries  in  the  North. 

Four  other  large  miniatures,  two  burnt  at  Turin,  two  existing 
at  Milan,  were  painted  by  another  artist,  obviously  a pupil  or 
follower  of  Hubert.  It  has  been  suggested  that  these  are  early 
works  by  John  van  Eyck,  but  they  may  have  been  added  at  a later 
date  by  an  imitative  miniaturist.  They  depict  God  the  Father 
enthroned,  the  Pieta,‘  the  Agony  in  the  Garden,  and  the  Crucifixion. 
Only  the  last  need  detain  us.  All  fall  below  Hubert’s  work  in 
achievement,  though  there  is  a fine  little  peep  of  landscape  at  the 
back  of  one  of  them,  but  their  inferiority  is  greater  in  emotional 
power  than  in  technique.  This  artist  shows  himself  a painstaking 
craftsman,  little  more.  There  is  no  fire  of  human  faith  of  any  kind 
as  yet  visible  in  him.  The  Crucifixion  miniature  is  interesting  for 
its  background,  with  the  great  walled  city,  the  number  of  tiny 
individuals  away  off  in  the  distance,  peopling  the  roads,  the  many 
houses,  the  over-multiplication  of  visible  windows,  and  the  curious 
great  tower,  I suppose  meant  for  the  Dome  of  the  Rock.*  But 

1 The  subject  at  the  foot  of  the  page,  which  Hulin  could  not  identify,  also  puzzled  Ruskin 
when  he  saw  it  in  a picture  ascribed  to  the  youthful  Carpaccio  at  Venice.  It  is  an  incident 
in  the  Legend  of  the  Holy  Cross,  when  the  Queen  of  Sheba,  instead  of  walking  over  a bridge 
made  of  the  Holy  Wood,  preferred  to  wade  through  a stream  to  meet  Solomon.  See  the 
twenty-fifth  woodcut  of  the  Boec  van  den  Houte ; Veldener  at  Kuilenburg,  March  6, 1483, 4to. 

^ A rather  close  connexion  exists  between  this  miniature  and  a picture  of  the  same 
subject  which  is  in  the  Franchetti  Collection  at  Venice,  whereof  there  is  an  unfinished  copy 
in  the  Museo  Civico  at  Padua.  The  unknown  painter  was  evidently  a follower  of  Hubert 
van  Eyck,  and  it  has  been  suggested  that  he  may  have  worked  in  Holland.  See  Jahrb. 
d.  Pr.  Kss.,  1902,  p.  33,  and  1905,  p.  111. 


50 


THE  HOURS  OF  TURIN 


what  especially  interests  us  is  the  remote  mountainous  distance, 
as  of  an  Alpine  range  across  the  horizon,  and  in  front  of  that  a 
two-spired  church,  which  looks  remarkably  South  German  or  Swiss. 
The  man  who  painted  this  landscape  had  seen  the  Alps.  Of  course 
it  may  have  been  designed  by  Hubert  or  imitated,  as  suggested  at 
a later  date,  but  if  John  painted  it  he  had  been  within  sight  of  the 
Alps  during  his  journeyman  years,  and  had  actually  sketched 
landscapes  when  on  his  travels.  Hubert,  then,  had  taught  him  to 
study  landscape  from  that  new  point  of  view  during  his  years  of 
apprenticeship.  This,  however,  is  a conclusion  I hesitate  to  draw, 
preferring  rather  to  attribute  these  remarkable  hills  to  a later 
imitator,  who  had  knowledge  of  such  a picture  as  the  Rolin 
Madonna.  John,  in  after  life,  when  his  brother  was  dead,  painted 
little  landscape.  Evidently  landscape  did  not  attract  him.  If 
any  of  the  pages  of  the  Hours  of  Turin  were  by  John,  it  was  merely 
his  hand  that  made  them  ; they  did  not  owe  their  conception  to 
him,  and  least  of  all  the  landscapes. 

A third  hand,  also  of  the  Van  Eyck  school,  identified  by  Hulin,' 
painted  some  charming  little  pictures,  but  this  artist  lacked  the 
power  of  Hubert  and  the  promise  of  John.  It  is  tempting  to 
imagine  that  here  we  have  the  hand  of  their  sister  Margaret,  if 
they  had  a sister  at  all,  whom  a late  tradition  asserts  to  have  been 
a painter.  Her  landscapes  are  nothing  like  as  good  as  those  of 
the  others.  To  this  hand  four  or  perhaps  five  large  miniatures  ^ 
are  attributed,  and  some  small  ones  and  initials.  We  need  only 
glance  at  that  wherein  a pilgrim  on  horseback  is  seen  in  danger 
of  highwaymen.  It  comes  nearer  to  the  style  of  the  de  Limbourgs 
than  any  other  of  the  set.  The  background  is  a wood  like  that  of 
Vincennes.  The  foreground  is  merely  undulating  grass.  No  part 
is  closely  studied  from  nature.  A little  bat  of  a devil  lays  the  heads 
of  two  of  the  brigands  together.  But  the  pilgrim,  a charming  figure 
with  sweet  expression,  rides  quietly  forward,  praying,  and  Christ 
blesses  him  from  above.  It  is  all  well  enough,  and  in  a less  remark- 
able volume  could  pass  muster,  but  it  falls  far  below  Hubert’s  level, 

1 I say  third,  not  third  and  fourth,  because  his  I and  J must  surely  have  been  one  and 
the  same. 

2 Christ  teaching,  Christ  blessing,  a Pilgrim  on  horseback,  a King  in  his  tent,  and 
perhaps  St.  Jerome  in  his  cell. 


THE  FATE  OF  THE  MANUSCRIPT 


51 


When  the  work  had  reached  this  point  the  Duke  of  Bavaria 
died,  and  the  Van  Eycks’  contribution  came  to  an  end.  What  hap- 
pened afterwards  scarcely  interests  us.  We  do  not  know  into 
whose  hands  the  volume  passed,  but  about  the  middle  of  the 
fifteenth  century  the  missing  miniatures  and  initials  were  supplied 
and  the  whole  was  finished.  It  was  again  cut  in  two.  Half  of  it 
passed  into  the  possession  of  the  House  of  Savoy,  and  so  ultimately 
through  the  Turin  Library  into  the  flames  ; the  other  half  entered 
the  Trivulzio  Library,  probably  about  the  beginning  of  the 
nineteenth  century.  ^ 

1 Since  the  foregoing  was  written  I have  been  able  to  read  Friedlander’s  essay  on  the 
Van  Eycks  in  his  aforementioned  work.  He  adopts  the  theory  that  we  possess  no  work  of 
Hubert’s  (except  what  he  may  have  done  on  the  Ghent  altar-piece)  and  that  all  the  Van 
Eyck  pictures  and  the  important  miniatures  are  the  work  of  John.  This  conclusion  makes 
nonsense  of  the  inscription  on  the  altar-piece,  and  falsifies  the  tradition  of  the  school . 
Whatever  else  the  inscription  may  or  may  not  say  it  clearly  asserts  that  there  were  two 
artists,  brothers,  the  elder  Hubert,  the  younger  John,  and  it  praises  Hubert  as  the  greatest 
of  artists.  Granted  that  this  was  an  exaggeration  and  may  be  set  down  to  the  partiality 
and  gratitude  of  a yoimger  brother,  who  owed  his  teaching  to  the  elder,  it  could  not  possibly 
have  been  allowed  to  appear  on  a picture  painted  for  an  influential  donor,  if  it  did  not 
more  or  less  express  a contemporary  opinion.  It  is  a relatively  late  tradition  that  ascribes 
the  “ invention  of  oil-painting  ” to  John.  Neither  brother  painted  in  oils  as  we  understand 
the  phrase,  but  both  employed  on  the  Ghent  altar-piece  a new  method  of  painting,  which 
must  therefore  have  been  initiated  by  Hubert,  though  it  was  carried  to  a higher  point  of 
development  by  John  after  Hubert’s  death.  Our  conclusions  have  got  to  square  with 
recorded  facts.  No  critic,  however  great,  in  the  twentieth  century  can  wipe  out  an  ancient 
record  because  it  does  not  suit  his  conclusions.  It  is  the  conclusions  that  must  be  wrong. 
That  there  were  two  brothers,  both  great  artists,  is  as  certain  as  any  recorded  fact  in  the 
distant  past  can  be.  One  was  much  older  than  the  other  and  was  the  teacher  of  the  other. 
The  elder  was  a very  great  artist.  Their  approximate  relative  ages  are  known.  One 
of  them  in  or  about  1416  painted  the  aforesaid  river-landscape.  It  is  the  mature  work  of 
the  inventor  of  modern  landscape-painting.  It  implies  not  less  than  ten  years  and  prob- 
ably more  like  twenty  of  previous  study  and  invention  before  such  perfection  could  liave 
been  attained.  The  man  who  painted  it  must  have  been  an  originating  artist  by  about 
1400.  At  that  time  John  cannot  have  been  more  than  a very  young  child.  It  is  further 
evident  that  the  Van  Eyck  type  of  panel-painting  developed  out  of  a miniaturist  school. 
It  retained  traces  of  that  origin  for  a hundred  years.  It  is  only  Hubert  who  was  old 
enough  to  have  his  roots  in  the  miniature  school  in  the  days  of  its  culmination.  When 
Jacques  Bandol  was  painting  an  artist  such  as  Hubert  might  have  arisen  from  the  ranks  of 
the  miniaturists,  but  not  much  later.  John  is  a picture-painter  from  the  start.  His 
master  must  have  been  of  the  generation  of  the  transition.  The  obliteration  of  Hubert 
from  the  record  seems  to  me  to  confuse  and  render  illogical  the  origins  of  the  Netherlandish 
Sehool  of  Painting.  If  Hubert  were  not  a recorded  personage  we  should  have  to  invent  an 
individual  to  take  the  place  which  he  exactly  fills. 


CHAPTER  V 


HUBERT  VAN  EYCK 

Written  records  tell  us  nothing  about  Hubert  van  Eyck  before 
the  last  years  of  his  life,  but  we  are  not  therefore  left  entirely  in  the 
dark  about  him.  A probably  sound  tradition  asserts  that  he  and 
John  were  born  at  Maaseyck.  As  we  have  just  seen,  he  was 
working  for  Duke  William  of  Bavaria  from  1414,  perhaps  many 
years  earlier,  till  the  Duke’s  death  in  1417.  His  younger  brother 
John  was  his  pupil.  Before  1417  Hubert  had  made  his  great 
innovation  in  landscape ; in  the  river-view  he  had  carried  the  new 
art  to  a perfection  never  afterwards  quite  equalled  by  himself,  and 
certainly  not  by  anyone  else  for  a century  or  more.  In  that  picture 
too  he  had  shown  himself  a master  of  atmospheric  as  well  as  of 
linear  perspective,  far  in  advance  of  any  other  painter  in  the  North 
of  Europe.  If  the  painter  of  the  river-view  was  not  Hubert,  we 
should  have  to  postulate  the  existence  of  another  and  greater  artist 
than  he,  who  must  have  lived,  revolutionized  landscape-painting, 
learned  and  taught  perspective,  and  died,  without  leaving  a trace 
behind.  It  is  nonsense  to  talk  of  the  landscapes  in  the  Hours  of 
Turin  as  showing  Hubert’s  “ influence.”  They  are  either  by  him 
or  by  a greater.  There  is  no  alternative.  If  by  him  they  are  his 
best  work  of  the  kind.  Here,  then,  we  have  a man  at  the  top  of  his 
powers  about  1416,  who  was  to  die  ten  years  later,  apparently  not 
young.  Obviously  we  may  expect  to  And  at  least  some  other 
works  remaining  from  his  hand. 

The  great  Ghent  altar-piece  of  the  Adoration  of  the  Lamb  is, 
we  know,  mainly  his.  Tradition  and  an  inscription,  which  nobody 
can  quite  translate,  assert  that  much.  All  existing  documents 
and  later  statements  and  records  of  any  weight  have  been  duly 
brought  together,  printed,  and  commented  on  by  Mr.  Weale  in  his 
monumental  work  on  the  two  brothers.  The  reader  is  referred  to 

52 


AN  INNOVATOR  IN  TECHNIQUE 


53 


that  book  for  details,  authorities,  and  references.  The  Ghent 
altar-piece  and  the  other  pictures,  to  which  we  shall  presently  refer, 
when  compared  with  the  panel-paintings  of  contemporary  and  older 
artists,  are  seen  to  have  been  executed  by  a new  technical  method. 
It  used  to  be  said  that  the  Van  Eycks  invented  oil-painting.  The 
method  in  which  these  pictures  are  painted  is  not  what  modern 
artists  understand  by  oil-painting,  nor  does  it  matter  to  us,  who 
are  not  artists,  but  art-lovers  (not  cooks,  but  epicures),  what  the 
actual  process  was.  The  thing  that  is  patent  is  that  the  process 
was  novel,  and  that  it  came  into  use  first  in  the  days  of  Hubert 
and  in  pictures  painted  by  him,  while  it  was  carried  to  greater  per- 
fection in  later  days  by  John.  Pictures  done  in  the  new  method 
look  brighter,  richer  in  tone,  more  enamel-like  in  surface,  and  are 
evidently  less  tender  and  more  durable  as  well  as  more  brilliant 
and  jewel-like  in  colour  than  those  of  an  earlier  date.  Thus 
Hubert  was  an  innovator  in  technique  as  well  as  in  the  style  and 
subjects  of  his  art.  Of  his  experimental  stages  we  know  nothing, 
nor  how  much  John  may  have  helped  him. 

The  Adoration  of  the  Lamb,  with  its  nineteen  large  panels — 
large,  that  is  to  say,  in  comparison  with  most  of  the  other  panel- 
pictures  by  the  brothers — must  have  taken  many  years  to  paint. 
It  was  finished  at  Ghent,  May  6,  1432,  for  one  Jodoc  Vyt,^  after  the 
death  of  Hubert,  who  had  left  it  incomplete  to  a greater  or  less 
degree,  as  to  which  the  critics  quarrel.  The  buildings  in  the  back- 
ground have  suggested  to  ingenious  experts  that  the  altar-piece  must 
have  been  designed  and  begun  for  someone  who  lived  within  the 
diocese  of  Utrecht  and  ecclesiastical  province  of  Cologne.  The 
County  of  Holland  is  so  situated,  but  Ghent,  where  Vyt  lived  and 
died  and  set  up  the  picture,  is  not.  Hence  it  has  been  suggested 
that  the  picture  was  designed  and  begun  for  Duke  William  of 
Bavaria,  Count  of  Holland  ; that  it  was  interrupted  at  his  death, 
and  left  on  the  painter’s  hands  when  he  moved  to  Ghent ; that  it 
was  taken  in  hand  again  for  Jodoc  Vyt  by  Hubert,  and  again 
interrupted  when  Hubert  died  ; and  that  finally  it  was  finished 
by  John  in  the  year  1432,  as  aforesaid.  But  the  experienced 

^ For  a life  of  Vyt  see  Bull.  Soc.  d'hist.  dc  Gand,  xv,  p.  84.  He  took  in  hand  in  1420 
the  decoration  of  the  chapel  in  St.  Bavon’s  for  which  the  altar-piece  was  painted.  He 
was  a very  rich  man. 


54 


HUBERT  VAN  EYCK 


Hulin  has  pointed  out  that  great  altar-pieces  were  not  usually  a 
princely  weakness.  Those  we  know  about,  belonging  to  this  school 
and  century,  were  ordered  and  paid  for  either  by  religious  corpora- 
tions or  by  rich  individuals,  local  or  foreign.  Financiers  and 
merchants  were  tempted  to  this  kind  of  expense,  not  princes. 

The  picture  itself  is  so  well  known,  and  reproductions  of  it  are 
so  easily  accessible  (an  excellent  water-colour  copy  is  in  the  National 
Gallery)  that  I do  not  waste  plates  on  photographs  of  it  here.  All 
the  interior  panels,  when  the  wings  are  open,  unite  to  illustrate  the 
following  passages  from  the  Apocalypse  of  St.  John  : 

“ I looked,  and,  lo,  a Lamb  stood  on  the  Mount  Sion,  and  with 
him  an  hundred  and  forty  and  four  thousand,  having  his  Father’s 
name  written  in  their  foreheads.  And  I heard  a voice  from  Heaven 
as  the  voice  of  many  waters,  and  as  the  voice  of  a great  thunder  ; 
and  I heard  the  voice  of  harpers  harping  with  their  harps  : and 
they  sung  as  it  were  a new  song  before  the  throne,  and  before  the 
four  beasts,  and  the  elders  : and  no  man  could  learn  that  song 
but  the  hundred  and  forty  and  four  thousand,  which  were  re- 
deemed from  the  earth.  . . . These  are  they  which  follow  the 
Lamb  whithersoever  he  goeth.  These  were  redeemed  from  among 
men,  being  the  first-fruits  unto  God  and  to  the  Lamb.  And  in 
their  mouth  was  found  no  guile  : for  they  are  without  fault  before 
the  throne  of  God.” 

And  again : 

“ I beheld,  and,  lo,  a great  multitude,  which  no  man  could 
number,  clothed  with  white  robes,  and  palms  in  their  hands.  . . 
These  are  they  which  came  out  of  great  tribulation,  and  have 
washed  their  robes,  and  made  them  white  in  the  blood  of  the 
Lamb.  Therefore  are  they  before  the  throne  of  God  ; and  he 
shall  feed  them,  and  shall  lead  them  to  living  fountains  of  waters, 
and  shall  wipe  away  all  tears  from  their  eyes.” 

Upon  the  principal  panel  below  is  the  Adoration  of  the  Lamb  ; 
on  the  lower  panels  of  the  wings  on  either  side  of  it  are  the  Just 
Judges  and  the  Knights,  the  Saints  and  the  Hermits  advancing  to 
adore.  The  noble  figure  of  Christ,  King  of  Heaven,  seated  between 
the  Virgin  and  John  Baptist  (as  He  is  usually  represented  in  pictures 
of  the  Last  Judgment),  occupies  the  upper  central  portion,  whilst 


THE  ADORATION  OF  THE  LAMB 


55 


in  the  corresponding  parts  of  the  wings  on  either  side  are  choirs  of 
playing  and  singing  angels,  and  Adam  and  Eve  representing  the 
fallen,  as  the  Virgin  and  John  the  redeemed,  human  race. 

Among  the  knights  are  St.  Michael  and  St.  George,  St.  Maurice 
and  Charlemagne.  Knights  and  judges  together  represent  the 
two  sides  of  the  active  life.^  The  hermits  and  pilgrims,  devoted  to 
a life  of  contemplation,  are  opposed  to  them  on  the  other  wing. 
All  four  parties  move  along  tortuous  ways  through  a beautiful 
country  toward  the  mystic  altar  of  the  Lamb.  The  nearer  they 
approach,  the  more  richly  is  the  country  wooded,  and  the  clearer 
and  purer  is  the  overarching  sky.  About  the  altar  itself  on 
every  side  flowers  burst  into  joyful  bloom — ^^dolets  and  pansies, 
cowslips,  daisies,  and  lilies  of  the  valley,  all  in  their  fairest  colours. 
Behind  are  purple  flags,  lilies,  roses,  and  vines  in  fullest  strength  of 
life  and  glow  of  blossom  ; no  stricken  bud,  no  blighted  leaf,  no 
withered  flower  among  them,  for  they  grow  in  the  soil  of  Paradise, 
where  there  is  no  decay.  Even  the  stones  in  the  brook  are  jewels, 
and  the  water  of  life  washes  them. 

Those  who  have  already  arrived  are  grouped  in  adoration  on 
either  side  of  the  altar.  Ranged  in  front  are  the  Apostles,  fourteen 
in  number,  including  Paul  and  Barnabas ; behind  are  Popes,  Bishops, 
and  a body  of  the  faithful.  Over  against  them  are  the  ancient 
prophets,  those  of  the  Jews  in  front,  those  of  the  Gentiles  (including 
-Homer,  Plato,  and  Aristotle)  ranked  behind,  all  alike  inspired  by 
the  rays  of  spiritual  illumination  which  fall  from  the  hovering  Dove. 
The  fountain  of  life  is  placed  in  front,  and  the  water  of  it  flows 
through  the  ages  along  its  jewelled  bed.  Behind,  among  the  rose 
bushes,  are  the  holy  martyrs  with  palm  branches  in  their  hands  ; 
among  the  lilies  opposite  to  them  are  the  martyred  virgins,  led  by 
Barbara,  Agnes,  Catherine,  and  Dorothy.  Angels  with  gorgeous 
rainbow-coloured  wings  kneel  round  about  the  altar,  some  in  con- 
templation holding  the  instruments  of  the  Passion,  some  in  adora- 
tion gazing  on  the  emblem  of  Divine  love,  some  swinging  their 
censers,  the  symbols  of  prayer,  till  they  touch  the  words  em- 

^ Suggestions  have  been  made  that  the  heads  of  some  of  these  figures  and  others  on 
the  neighbouring  panel  may  be  portraits — of  the  Duke  of  Berry,  of  the  Emperor  John  VI 
Paleologus,  and  so  forth.  No  general  agreement  has  been  arrived  at.  What  one  critic 
asserts,  another  denies. 


56 


HUBERT  VAN  EYCK 


broidered  in  letters  of  gold,  “ Jesus  the  Way,  the  Truth,  and  the 
Life.”  As  the  keynote  to  the  whole  composition  the  painter  has 
written,  along  the  front  of  the  altar,  this  text  from  his  Latin 
Testament : “ Behold  the  Lamb  of  God,  that  taketh  away  the  sins 
of  the  world.” 

Evidently  we  are  confronted  in  these  panels  with  an  elaborated 
“ Paradise  picture  ” such  as  the  Cologne  artists  had  been  the  first 
to  paint  under  the  influence  of  the  Mystics.  Their  paradises  were 
in  a less  mundane  region  than  this  ; their  saints  and  prophets  were 
less  human.  But  the  spirit  that  breathes  through  all  is  the  same. 
It  is  not  the  concrete  spirit  of  France  that  meets  us  in  Hubert’s 
dream  of  heaven,  but  the  mystic  imaginings  of  the  Rhine.  That 
some  direct  influence  from  Cologne  artists  had  reached  Hubert  is 
proved  by  the  more  than  chance  resemblances  which  can  be  traced 
between  his  Virgin  in  a Church  and  Meister  Stephan’s  well-known 
Virgin  belonging  to  the  Archbishop  of  Cologne. 

Over  the  principal  landscape  panel  are  three  others,  each  con- 
taining a large  single  figure.  The  central  one  is  Christ  as  King  of 
Heaven,  with  countenance  majestically  calm,  intellectual  power 
in  the  forehead,  mild  deep  eyes,  a strong  hand,  a dignified  pose. 
The  word  Sabaoth  can  be  read  on  the  embroidered  edge  of  His  robe. 
He  is  crowned  with  a triple  diadem  as  Lord  of  Heaven  ; His  hand 
grasps  a sceptre ; the  royal  crown  of  earthly  sovereignty  is  at  His 
feet.  Heaven  is  His  throne ; earth  His  footstool.  The  symbol  of 
self-sacrifice — the  Pelican  nourishing  her  young  with  flesh  plucked 
from  her  own  breast — is  embroidered  on  the  curtain  behind. 
Below  His  feet  is  this  inscription : “In  His  head  life  without  death ; 
on  His  forehead  youth  without  age  ; joy  without  sorrow  on  His 
right  hand  ; security  without  fear  on  His  left.” 

Scarcely  less  beautiful  is  the  figure  of  the  Virgin,  the  repre- 
sentative of  all  glorified  women,  as  John  Baptist  of  all  glorified  men. 
Specially  interesting  is  the  symbolism  of  her  crown.  The  hair 
represents  the  strength  of  life,  and  the  crown  the  obedience  to 
Divine  law  that  governs  and  restrains  it.  The  Nazarite,  who 
devoted  himself  to  the  Lord,  let  his  hair  grow  in  token  that  his 
life  was  no  longer  his  own,  to  order  it  according  to  his  pleasure. 
The  Pagan  cast  a lock  of  his  hair  into  the  sacred  river  of  his  land, 
or  burnt  it  to  his  god  in  the  sacrificial  fire,  as  a sign  of  his  self- 


THE  ADORATION  OF  THE  LAMB 


57 


dedication.  The  fillet,  therefore,  that  binds  the  hair  symbolizes 
the  obedience  to  eternal  law  which  binds  the  life  ; thus  the  crown 
primarily  symbolizes  obedience,  and  only  secondarily  command, 
because  he  alone  is  fit  to  order  others  who  himself  has  learnt  to 
obey.  “ He  that  ruleth  over  men  must  be  just,  ruling  in  the  fear 
of  God  ; and  he  shall  be  as  the  light  of  morning  when  the  sun 
ariseth.”  The  crown  of  thorns  is  the  parent  of  all  others,  and 
they,  like  it,  alone  become  glorious  by  obedient  wearing,  even  as 
the  rod  of  martyrdom  is  changed  into  the  martyr’s  palm. 

The  most  beautiful  virtue  of  the  Virgin,  to  the  mediaeval  mind, 
was  her  humility,  and  the  symbol  of  that  was  the  lily  of  the  valley. 
“ The  Lord  has  regarded  the  lowliness  of  his  handmaiden.”  Her 
crown  is  a crown  of  lowliness,  a ring  of  wild  and  humble  flowers — 
the  lily  of  the  valley,  the  wild  rose,  and  the  rod  lily,  which  the 
Angel  of  the  Annunciation  always  bears.  But  in  sign  of  her  great 
reward  the  binding  fillet  of  lowly  obedience  glitters  with  rubies 
and  topaz  and  pearls  ; the  humble  flowers  toss  themselves  up  in 
their  joy,  and  are  strong  with  unfading  vigour  ; the  lilies  and  the 
harebells  hold  up  their  heads  in  the  fulness  of  a larger  life ; 
the  petals  of  the  wild  roses  glow  with  richer  tones.  And  above  the 
blossoms  glitter  their  brothers  of  the  night,  a sevenfold  coronal  of 
stars.  The  erown  of  humility  has  become  a crown  of  glory  too. 

When  the  wings  are  closed  we  see  the  Annunciation,  taking 
place  in  a room  in  Ghent,  for  there  is  a view  of  the  Rue  Courte-du- 
jour  seen  through  the  window. ^ Not  long  ago  a large  house  in  the 
Rue  de  Gouvernement  was  demolished,  revealing  the  old  walls  of 
a building  believed  to  have  belonged  to  Jodoe  Vyt.  On  its  third 
floor  a square  window  was  discovered,  of  Romanesque  type,  exactly 
answering  in  position  to  the  window  in  the  picture.  In  the  lower 
panels  of  the  closed  wings  are  the  kneeling  portraits  of  Jodoc  Vyt 
and  his  wife,  and  statues  of  the  two  St.  Johns.  Prophets  and 
Sibyls  fill  the  lunettes  over  the  Annunciation. 

As  I have  said,  the  critics  quarrel  over  the  respective  shares 
of  the  work  done  by  Hubert  and  John  respectively.  Without 
attempting  to  divide  them  in  detail  two  facts  are  fairly  obvious. 
The  first  is  that  the  design  of  the  whole  was  Hubert’s.  It  is  a single 
conception,  and  all  the  parts  hang  together  with  one  exeeption. 

^ Mr.  Weale  thought  the  view  was  in  Bruges. 


58 


HUBERT  VAN  EYCK 


This  brings  us  to  the  second  secure  fact.  The  figures  of  Adam  and 
Eve  are,  in  form,  spirit,  scale,  and  all  else,  entirely  out  of  keeping 
with  the  rest.  Whoever  designed  the  whole  did  not  design  these. 
Whoever  painted  or  directed  the  painting  of  the  rest  did  not  paint 
these.  They  belong  to  another  world  of  art.  Doubtless  figures  of 
the  parents  of  the  human  race  were  intended  by  the  man  who 
ordered  the  altar-piece  to  occupy  these  positions,  but  Hubert  would 
have  made  them  range  in  scale  with  the  playing  and  singing  angels 
in  the  neighbouring  panels,  and  assuredly  did  not  intend  them  to 
be  characterized  by  the  coarse  and  hideous  naturalism  of  these  two 
wonderful  but  unlovely  nudes.  There  is  a similar  discrepancy 
between  the  room  interior  on  the  other  faces  of  these  same  panels, 
and  the  interior  behind  the  Virgin  and  angel.  They  are  not  all 
parts  of  the  same  room.  The  horizontal  lines  do  not  fit  straight 
across,  and  the  lobby  or  gallery  seen  through  the  windows  on  right 
and  left  is  inconsistent  with  the  absence  of  any  end  wall,  as  of  a 
tower  or  other  termination  to  close  the  chamber  on  the  left,  which 
should  have  been  visible  through  the  open  window.  We  may 
guess,  therefore,  that  these  two  panels  were  not  only  painted,  but 
redesigned  by  John  after  Hubert’s  death,  and  the  Adam  and  Eve 
in  every  respect  confirm  that  conclusion.  As  for  all  the  rest,  we 
need  not  trouble.  John  may  have  helped  with  this  or  the  other 
panel,  finished  this  or  the  other  figure,  but  if  he  did  he  was  carrying 
out  the  design  of  Hubert  in  entire  subordination  to  him,  and  all 
the  praise  is  Hubert’s,  not  John’s. 

There  is  one  more  anomaly  pointing  to  a change  of  design. 
When  the  wings  are  open  it  will  be  observed  that  all  the  upper  row 
of  panels  except  those  of  Adam  and  Eve  are  designed  with  a per- 
spective which  implies  that  the  spectator  is  at  a higher  level  than 
their  floor.  We  look  down  upon  the  pavement  under  the  feet 
of  the  three  great  figures  and  the  playing  and  singing  angels  ; but 
our  eye  is  below  the  level  of  the  ground  on  which  Adam  and  Eve 
stand.  Here,  then,  is  an  obvious  change  of  design  which  points 
beyond  question  to  the  intervention  of  a painter  who  did  not 
design  the  rest.  Similarly,  when  the  wings  are  closed  we  look  up 
to  the  four  figures  of  Sibyls  and  Prophets  at  the  top,  but  down  on 
all  the  rest.  A stronger  proof  could  hardly  be  desired  to  indicate 
the  limits  of  the  independent  work  of  the  two  brothers. 


HUBERT’S  PICTURES 


59 


In  Hubert’s  Ghent  period,  John  was  not  his  assistant  as  he 
may  have  been  when  they  worked  for  Duke  William.  Duke  William 
died,  as  has  been  stated,  in  1417.  It  used  to  be  believed  that  both 
brothers  were  reeeived  into  the  Ghent  painters’  guild  in  1419,  but 
the  copy  of  the  records  of  that  Guild  no  longer  commands  con- 
fidence. It  is  likely  that,  on  the  death  of  his  patron,  Hubert  moved 
elsewhere  at  once,  possibly  to  Ghent.  John  at  any  rate  was  not  at 
Ghent  between  October  24,  1422  and  September  11,  1424  ; for 
during  that  interval,  and  probably  earlier,  he  was  in  the  service  of 
John  of  Bavaria,  Count  of  Holland,  at  The  Hague,  and  probably 
so  continued  till  the  death  of  the  Count  on  January  5,  1425.  Four 
months  later  John  was  appointed  Court  painter  to  Philip  the  Good, 
Duke  of  Burgundy,  and  thereupon  took  up  his  residence  at  Bruges.. 
But  enough  of  these  wearisome  details ! Broadly  speaking,  we  may 
guess  that  when  Duke  William  died  John  was  taken  over  by  his 
successor,  and  that  when  that  patron  died  he  passed  into  the  service 
of  Philip  the  Good.  He  can  therefore  have  had  but  little  share 
in  the  Adoration  except  perhaps  in  its  very  earliest,  and  certainly 
in  its  latest  stages. 

We  must  now  go  back  to  the  earlier  pictures,  for  this  necessary 
consideration  of  the  Adoration  has  brought  us  to  the  close  of 
Hubert’s  life  before  we  are  ready  to  take  leave  of  him  and  his  works. 

The  will,  dated  1413,  of  Jean  de  Visch,  who  was  “grand  bailli  ” 
of  Flanders,  bequeaths  a picture  by  Hubert.  Doubtless  many 
other  paintings  were  made  by  him  before  that.  The  following,  in 
addition  to  the  Adoration,  are  some  pictures  attributed  to  him  : 

The  Virgin  and  Child  in  a Church,  in  Berlin  Kaiser  Fried- 
rich Museum,  or  the  original  from  which  it  was  imitated. 

The  Crucifixion,  in  Berlin,  K.F.M. 

The  (lost)  original  of  the  Virgin  and  Child  by  a Fountain,, 
in  Berlin,  K.F.M. 

The  (lost)  original  of  the  Fountain  of  Living  Water,  at 
Madrid. 

The  Three  Maries  at  the  Sepulchre,  in  the  Cook  Collection 
at  Richmond. 

The  Steenken  Madonna,  in  the  Gustave  Rothschild  Collec- 
tion, Paris  (date  c.  1418). 


HUBERT  VAN  EYCK 


St.  Francis,  in  the  Johnson  Collection,  Philadelphia ; a 
repetition  of  it  at  Turin.^ 

The  Crueifixion  and  Last  Judgment,  wings  of  a lost  Adora- 
tion of  the  Magi,®  in  the  Hermitage,  Petrograd. 

The  Rolin  Madonna  in  the  Louvre. 

The  small  triptych  at  Dresden. 

In  the  Adoration  and  several  of  the  pictures  the  flora,  accurately 
painted  by  someone  who  had  direct  knowledge  of  the  plants  and 
trees  from  personal  observation,  includes  the  following : the  Olive, 
the  bitter  or  Seville  Orange,  the  Cypress,  the  Umbrella  or  Stone 
Pine,  the  Date  Palm,  and  the  Dwarf  Palm  or  Palmetto  {Chamcerops 
humilis).  The  stone-pine  is  common  in  Central  Italy.  All  the 
others  are  said  to  be  found  in  South  Italy.  Again,  in  several  of  these 
pictures  we  find  views  of  the  Alps  in  the  background,  similar  to 
that  on  one  of  the  pages  of  the  Hours  of  Turin.  Mr.  Weale  also 
brought  together  the  following  noteworthy  observations  collected 
from  various  students.  The  figure  of  a man  in  a white  toga  and 
crowned  with  laurel  in  the  foreground  of  the  Adoration  is  borrowed 
from  the  antique  ; so  is  a bronze  statuette  of  Mars  in  the  Steenken 
Madonna.  A capital  in  the  Dresden  triptych  shows  sculptured 
decoration  obviously  suggested  by  a bas-relief  on  some  Roman 
sarcophagus.  The  figures  of  the  Virgin  and  John  in  the  Berlin 
Crucifixion  are  derived  from  a Giottesque  model.  Architectural 
details  in  the  Steenken  Madonna  are  Italian  in  style,  while  the 
buildings  in  the  background  of  it  “ include  an  unmistakable  view 
of  old  St.  Paul’s  (London)  and  a number  of  battlemented  towers 
with  pinnacles  at  the  angles  of  a decidedly  English  character.”  If, 
then,  Hubert  painted  many  of  these  pictures,  he  must  have  been  a 
considerable  traveller.  Nothing  quickens  the  observation  and 
delight  in  natural  seenery  like  travel.  Many  a man  who  has  taken 
his  home  scenery  for  granted  and  paid  little  attention  to  its  beauty 
has  been  awakened  to  delight  in  nature  by  contact  with  what  to 
him  are  novel  kinds  of  country.  How  many,  like  Ruskin,  may  still 

1 The  existence  of  a pair  of  pictures  of  St.  Francis,  which  might  conceivably  be  these, 
is  vouched  for  by  the  will  of  Anselmo  Adornes  of  1470,  who  devised  such  pictures  to  his 
two  daughters.  Wings  were  to  be  added  to  them  with  portraits  of  himself  and  his  wife. 
Archives  des  arts,  etc.,  1st  series,  t.  i,  p.  269. 

2 See  Burlington  Magazine,  August  1911,  p.  256.  If  this  picture  belonged  to  John 
Duke  of  Berry  (Durrieu  in  Gaz.  B.-A.,  i,  1920,  pp.  77-105)  it  must  date  before  1416. 


THE  RICHMOND  THREE  MARIES 


61 


date  their  “ entry  into  life  ” from  their  first  sight  of  the  Alps  ! Was 
it  the  splendour  of  the  mountains  that  aroused  in  Hubert  the 
desire  to  depict  them  and  other  natural  objects,  and  so  led  him  to 
become  the  first  true  landscape  artist  ? 

But  he  may  have  wandered  yet  further  afield.  In  the  back- 
ground of  three  pictures— the  Crucifixion  in  the  Hours  of  Turin, 
that  in  the  Berlin  Museum,  and  the  Richmond  Three  Maries — 
there  are  cities  intended  to  represent  Jerusalem.  All  three  show 
a great  building,  evidently  intended  for  the  Dome  of  the  Rock. 
In  the  first  two  this  building  is  purely  imaginary,  but  the  third  is 
drawn  or  copied  from  a drawing  by  a man  who  had  seen  it  and 
taken  notes  of  it  on  the  spot.  Hubert,  say  some,  obtained  a drawing 
of  it  from  a pilgrim.  It  is  conceivable  but  improbable,  for  the 
reason  that  no  one  before  Hubert  himself  is  known  to  have  made 
landscape  drawings.  A few  years  later  it  would  have  been  different. 
Hubert’s  introduction  of  landscape  drawing  opened  a new  age,  and 
a generation  or  two  later  there  were  plenty  of  people  who  might 
have  thought  of  bringing  home  from  their  travels  views  of 
important  sights  or  buildings.  Thus  in  1486  Erhard  Reuwich 
published  at  Mayence  Bernard  von  Breydenbach’s  account  of  his 
pilgrimage  to  the  Holy  Places  and  illustrated  it  with  woodcuts,  one 
of  which  depicts,  for  the  first  time  in  any  book,  Jerusalem  as  some 
member  of  the  party  drew  it.  Even  then  such  representations 
were  novelties.  Pilgrimages  to  Jerusalem  were  common  in  the 
fifteenth  century.  Several  courtiers  of  Burgundy  went  there  under 
the  leadership  of  Bertrandon  de  la  Brocquiere  in  the  years  1432-3 
— a kind  of  personally  conducted  party — and  there  were  plenty  of 
such  pilgrimages.  It  is  just  possible  that  Hubert  was  a member  of 
such  a party. 

Whether  Hubert  himself  visited  Jerusalem  and  sketched  the 
Mosque  of  Omar  or  not,  it  remains  an  important  fact  that  to  the 
best  of  his  ability  he  placed  the  event  he  had  to  depict  as  occurring 
in  a definite  locality.  But  he  went  further.  The  Three  Maries 
visited  the  Sepulchre  at  break  of  day.  No  artist  had  troubled  him- 
self about  such  details  before.  They  had  been  content  to  express 
the  religious  emotion  which  an  event  was  supposed  to  embody. 
Hubert  set  himself  to  realize  the  event  as  an  historical  fact.  Hence, 
in  his  picture,  it  is  the  hour  of  dawn.  The  sun  has  just  risen,  but 
6 


62 


HUBERT  VAN  EYCK 


is  hidden  from  view  by  crags  in  the  foreground.  The  low  light 
catches  brightly  a distant  building  on  a hill-top,  less  brightly  the 
domes  and  pinnacles  of  the  city.  Eastward  the  sky  is  full  of  warm 
illumination,  but  to  the  south  it  is  cold—  only  the  tops  of  cumulus 
clouds  in  that  direction  being  lofty  enough  to  catch  the  light. 

The  original  of  the  Fountain  of  Living  Water  was  in  the  Chapel 
of  St.  Jerome  in  Palencia  Cathedral  up  to  1783.  It  had  disappeared 
before  1815.  In  composition  it  presents  features  in  common  with 
the  Adoration  of  the  Lamb.  Its  three-staged  design  appears  to 
have  been  borrowed  from  the  mystery  plays.  On  the  lowest  tier, 
in  front  on  the  left,  is  a kneeling  man  with  hands  raised.  The 
same  man  is  portrayed  in  a little  fragment  in  Berlin,  supposed  to 
be  part  cut  from  a larger  picture.  There  is  no  reason  to  think 
that  they  are  portraits  of  the  artist,  still  less  that  the  smiling 
horseman  prominent  in  the  Adoration  is  Hubert  or  the  youth 
behind  him  John.  If  the  painter  has  anywhere  introduced  his  own 
or  his  brother’s  portrait,  it  is  further  to  the  left,  but  one  of  the  two 
individuals  squeezed  in  there  was  probably  the  donor.  The  ascrip- 
tion of  this  picture  to  Hubert  is,  however,  not  entirely  convincing. 
Christ,  the  Virgin,  and  St.  John  fall  in  dignity  far  below  corre- 
sponding figures  in  the  Adoration,  and  can  scarcely  have  been 
designed  by  him.  They  are  more  like  John’s  less  inspired  creations. 
That  whoever  composed  the  picture  was  working  under  Hubert’s 
influence  is  at  least  probable.  It  is,  however,  evident  that  the 
artist  who  painted  the  pieture,  were  he  even  Luis  Dalmau  of 
Valencia,  was  carrying  on  the  traditions  of  Hubert,  and  perhaps 
working  directly  under  his  influence.  We  have,  however,  only  a 
copy  to  go  by,  and  deductions  from  copies  are  insecure. 

That  Hubert  was  a good  portrait-painter  is  demonstrated  by  the 
kneeling  donors  on  the  outside  of  the  wings  of  the  Adoration. 
Poor  old  Jodoc  Vyt  is  a wholly  credible  personage  of  feeble  intelli- 
gence and  weak  charaeter,  who  must  have  owed  much  of  his  success 
in  life  to  the  powerful,  competent,  and  sweet  woman  whom  he  had 
the  luck  to  marry.  A man’s  portrait  at  Hermannstadt,  to  be  dated 
before  1425  or  even  1420  by  the  fashion  of  the  hat,  is  by  some  like- 
wise aseribed  to  Hubert.  Others  have  wished  to  attribute  to  him 
the  “ Esquire  of  the  Order  of  St.  Anthony  ” at  Berlin,  one  of  the 
finest  of  the  whole  group  of  Van  Eyck  portraits  ; while  the  fat 


HUBERT’S  CHARACTER 


63 


donor  in  the  Leipzig  Gallery  has  been  seen  and  rendered  very  much 
like  Vyt  in  the  Adoration  wing/ 

All  the  works  attributable  to  Hubert  bring  us  into  contact,  not 
only  with  a great  artist  of  original  genius  and  high  imagination, 
but  with  a man  of  noble  and  attractive  nature.  The  serenity  and 
gentleness  of  his  Virgins  and  saints,  the  tenderness  of  his  children, 
the  sweet  and  wholesome  atmosphere  of  the  world  in  which  his 
fancy  played,  are  all  clear  evidences  of  his  own  nature.  If  in 
painting  the  Adoration  of  the  Lamb  he  had  the  direction  of  some 
learned  cleric,  as  is  probable,  it  is  no  less  certain  that  the  pictorial 
conception  of  the  whole,  its  great  unity  as  the  embodiment  of  an 
imaginative  theme,  were  his  and  his  only.  The  various  parts  and 
personages  are  not  fitted  together  to  order— this  saint  here,  that 
Apostle  there  ; they  have,  as  it  were,  crystallized  into  form  and 
place  inevitably  as  the  outcome  of  the  creative  rather  than  the  con- 
structive power  of  a many-sided  man  of  genius.  Few  artists  have 
left  their  mark  more  indelibly  upon  the  generations  that  followed 
them.  Painters  in  the  Low  Countries,  and  after  them  those  of 
France,  contentedly  for  several  generations  followed  the  lines  he 
laid  down.  They  adopted  and  elaborated  his  technique.  They 
learnt  from  him  to  look  with  fresh  eyes  on  the  world  of  nature  and 
man  about  them,  and  to  embody  their  dreams  and  recognitions  of 
beauty  in  the  forms  of  nature  herself.  It  appears  that  they  soon 
forgot  Hubert’s  name  and  credited  their  indebtedness  to  his  younger 
brother,  but  Hubert  lived  on  in  them  all  the  same,  and  his  works 
remain,  even  to  the  present  day,  a delight  to  all  lovers  of  art,  and 
an  influence  upon  artists  which  is  still  far  from  worn  out.^ 

^ A little  panel  of  St.  George  and  the  Dragon,  belonging  to  General  de  Plaoutine  and 
recently  shown  at  the  Burlington  Fine  Arts  Club,  is  a marvel  of  minute  painting  in 
detail.  It  recalls  some  of  the  best  miniatures  in  the  Hours  of  Turin,  but  surpasses  them 
and  all  other  pictures  of  the  Van  Eyck  period  in  microscopic  finish.  In  Weale’s  Van 
Eyck  it  is  attributed  to  Hubert.  Mr.  Roger  Fry  {The  New  Statesman,  Jan.  1,  1921) 
attributes  it  to  a miniaturist  working  in  the  tradition  of  Campin,  but  of  this  tradition  I 
could  discover  no  trace. 

2 For  information  about  artists,  contemporary  with  Hubert,  working  at  Ghent,  see 
L.  Maeterlinck,  Une  ecole  primitive  inconnue,  Brussels,  1913.  Several  documents  are 
there  published  proving  that  Hubert  was  at  the  head  of  a large  and  active  studio  which 
contracted  for  great  schemes  of  decoration  and  especially  for  the  entire  decoration  of 
Vyt’s  chapel  (including  the  stained  glass  window)  and  (in  1425-6)  for  Robert  Poortier’s 
chapel  in  St.  Saviour’s,  Ghent. 


CHAPTER  VI 


JOHN  VAN  EYCK 

When  Hubert  van  Eyck  died  in  1426  it  is  possible  and  even  likely 
that  he  left  behind  him  other  unfinished  work  beside  the  Adoration 
of  the  Lamb.  Such  may  have  been  the  condition  of  the  Virgin  of 
Chancellor  Rolin,  a famous  picture  in  the  Louvre  ; such  perhaps 
also  that  of  the  Dresden  triptych.  The  landscape  in  the  former 
must  surely  be  Hubert’s.  John  did  not  paint  landscapes  of  that 
kind,  so  far  as  we  can  judge.  M.  de  Mely  seems  to  have  proved  that 
the  view  is  of  the  city  of  Lyons  seen  from  the  monastery  of  Ainay, 
looking  up  the  Saone  past  the  lie  Barbe  to  the  distant  Alps.  On 
the  other  hand,  the  hard  and  unspiritual  Virgin,  the  tubby  graceless 
Child  are  John’s  all  over,  and  so  is  the  grim  head  of  the  Chancellor. 
It  is,  however,  the  landscape  here  that  enraptures  every  beholder. 
The  figures  belong  to  the  solid  earth  on  which  John  firmly  stood, 
his  eyes  steadily  fixed  on  the  men  and  women  of  his  day.^ 

The  same  dignified  and  picturesque  architecture  of  Romanesque 
character,  which  perhaps  made  its  first  appearance  in  Hubert’s 
Steenken  Madonna,  is  likewise  found  in  other  pictures  attributable 
to  John  beside  the  Dresden  Madonna.  Thus  it  is  a prominent 
feature  in  the  Annunciation  at  Petrograd  and  in  the  Rolin  Madonna, 
in  both  of  which  Hubert  may  have  had  a hand,  as  well  as  in  the 
Pala  and  Maelbeke  Madonnas  of  1436  and  1441,  which  of  course  were 
wholly  John’s.  Hubert  at  all  events  was  the  first  to  employ  it, 
and  that  in  a day  when  nobody  else  thought  of  anything  but  Gothic. 
The  fact  that  antique  elements  are  found  in  combination  with  this 
round-arched  architecture  when  used  by  Hubert  may  supply  an 
explanation.  In  Italy,  it  is  to  be  supposed,  Hubert  saw  and  was 
pleased  by  the  remains  of  Roman  buildings.  Classical  architecture 

1 Hulin  in  Bull.  Soc.  d'Hisi.  de  Gand,  xv,  p.  91,  cites  a record  of  a portrait  by  John 
van  Eyck  of  the  year  1414,  representing  a Moorish  king  ; but  he  questions  the  date. 

64 


THE  ADAM  AND  EVE 


65 


attracted  him,  as  at  this  very  time  it  was  attracting  the  most 
advanced  artists  of  Italy.  He  had  not  time  (it  was  a life-work  even 
for  Leo  Battista  Alberti)  to  master  the  principles  of  that  style,  but 
the  round  arch,  at  all  events,  made  its  form  agreeable  to  him.  On 
his  return  home  there  were  no  Roman  buildings  for  him  to  imitate, 
so  he  fell  back  upon  Romanesque,  and  if  he  had  now  to  paint  a 
Virgin  and  Child  in  a church  we  may  be  sure  that  he  would  have 
chosen  a Romanesque,  not  a Gothic  church  to  enclose  her,  though  a 
tower  of  Italian  Gothic  type  appears  in  the  Steenken  Madonna. 

John  seems  to  have  been  less  attracted  by  Romanesque  than  his 
brother.  The  Petrograd  Annunciation  and  the  Dresden  triptych 
may  have  been  designed  and  begun  by  Hubert,  or  if  wholly  by  John, 
then  at  a time  when  Hubert’s  influence  over  him  was  fresh  and 
strong.  Hubert,  however,  would  hardly  have  inserted  into  the 
latter  the  Gothic  canopies  we  there  And.  Some  years  later  John,  as 
we  shall  see,  after  having  given  full  fling  to  his  own  preferences, 
seems  to  have  been  drawn  again  towards  some  of  the  forms  and 
feelings  of  his  dead  brother’s  works,  and  it  was  then  that  he  again 
employed  the  Romanesque  architeeture,  which  in  his  paintings  of 
the  intervening  period  had  been  entirely  replaced  by  Gothic. 

The  respective  shares  of  Hubert  and  John  in  the  Dresden  trip- 
tych and  the  Petrograd  Annunciation  need  not  be  further  defined 
than  thus  : in  the  former  the  pervading  spirit  is  clearly  Hubert’s, 
less  clearly  in  the  latter.  In  both,  however,  Hubert’s  ideal  is 
dominant.  Where,  as  in  the  Adoration,  the  two  brothers  painted 
different  parts,  each  after  his  own  design,  a striking  contrast  is 
evident.  To  most  people  of  to-day  John’s  Adam  and  Eve  are  a 
blot  on  that  picture.  In  fairness  let  us  here  record  that  these  two 
figures  were  the  most  admired  part  of  it  in  the  old  days.  Diirer 
noted  of  this  picture  that  “it  is  a most  precious  painting,  full  of 
thought,  and  the  Eve,  Mary,  and  God  the  Father  are  specially 
good.”  I have  read  that  it  was  popularly  called  the  “ Adam  and 
Eve  picture,”  which  if  true  shows  the  public  taste.  The  reason 
for  this  high  reputation  was,  of  course,  because  here  for  the  first 
time  were  two  nude  human  figures  veraciously  studied  from  life, 
and  truthfully  depicted  in  every  detail.  These  were  not  imaginary, 
but  actual  human  beings.  The  thing  that  has  never  been  done 
before  is  always  astonishing,  but  it  does  not  follow  that,  in  art,  it 


JOHN  VAN  EYCK 


is  beautiful  or  worth  doing  again.  Moreover,  the  figures  are  raised 
aloft  and  correctly  foreshortened,  as  Hubert’s  three  great  figures 
were  not.  It  was  all  a wonder  in  its  day,  but  none  to  us.  Photo- 
graphy will  do  that  kind  of  thing  every  bit  as  well,  while,  if  you 
want  the  mere  facts  of  life,  the  cinematograph  will  give  them  to  you 
yet  more  completely.  Art  has  higher  functions  than  the  exact 
rendering  of  visible  things,  as  was  recognized  long  before  the  present 
much  bephotographed  days. 

Some  bare  facts,  gleaned  from  archives  and  the  like  storehouses, 
are  known  about  John  van  Eyck’s  life  after  he  entered  the  service 
of  Philip  the  Good,  Duke  of  Burgundy,  on  May  19,  1425. ^ Soon 
after  that  date  he  was  sent  to  live  at  Lille  in  a house  the  Duke 
rented  for  him,  but  he  was  often  away.  Thus  in  1426  he  went  on 
a pilgrimage  for  the  Duke  and  on  two  secret  missions,  one  of  them 
perhaps  wife-hunting.  In  1428  he  accompanied  the  Duke’s  great 
wife-hunting  embassy  to  Portugal,  his  business  being  to  paint  the 
Lady  Isabella,  the  King’s  daughter.  He  sent  home  by  sea  and 
land  two  portraits  of  her.  There  was  a long  delay  before  an  answer 
could  be  received  from  the  Duke.  The  embassy  employed  the 
interval  journeying  about  Spain  and  visiting  various  courts  and 
cities.  The  negotiations  being  finally  successful,  the  Duke’s 
marriage  with  Princess  Isabella  was  solemnized  by  deputy.  Bride 
and  embassy  returned  to  Flanders  together,  suffering  much  from 
sea-sickness,  being  nearly  wrecked  off  Land’s  End,  and  experiencing 
many  other  adventures  on  the  way.  They  reached  her  new  home 
in  December  1429,  and  another  and  more  splendid  marriage  cere- 
mony was  performed  between  Philip  and  Isabella  in  person.  It 
was  in  honour  of  this  event  that  the  Duke  of  Burgundy  founded 
the  Knightly  Order  of  the  Golden  Fleece.  John  van  Eyck  now 
settled  at  Bruges  in  great  good  favour  with  his  patron.  He  bought 
a house,  and  presently  married  a lady  named  Margaret,  but  her 
family  name  is  forgotten.  Her  portrait  and  that  of  John  Arnolfini’s 
wife  look  like  those  of  sisters.  She  bore  a child  in  1434,  to  whom 
the  Duke  was  godfather ; at  least  one  more  was  born  later.  In 
1435  John  painted  six  of  the  statues  on  the  exterior  of  Bruges 
Town  Hall.  Next  year  he  went  on  another  secret  mission  for  the 
Duke.  In  1441  he  died,  and  his  widow  received  a pension. 

1 Set  forth  in  full  detail  in  Weale’s  Van  Eyck,  q.v. 


HIS  PORTRAITS 


67 


If  it  were  not  for  his  existing  pictures  all  the  above  laboriously 
collected  information  would  enable  us  to  know  little  about  the  kind 
of  person  John  van  Eyck  was.  But  the  pictures  are  eloquent 
enough.  If  all  of  them  could  be  brought  together  into  a room, 
most  persons  who  saw  them  would  agree  in  preferring  the  small 
pictures  to  the  large  ones,  and  the  portraits,  as  a group,  to  the 
religious  subjects.  Let  us,  then,  take  the  portraits  first.  Any  one 
of  the  following  may  be  accepted  as  example  of  the  rest  and  doubtless 
also  of  the  many  more  which  time  has  utterly  devoured  or  are  only 
now  insufficiently  represented  by  copies. 

1431.  Cardinal  Albergati,  Vienna ; drawing  for  it  at 
Dresden. 

1432.  The  “ Leal  Souvenir  ” portrait  of  a man,  National 
Gallery. 

1433.  The  Man  in  a Red  Turban,  National  Gallery. 

1434.  John  Arnolfini  and  Wife,  National  Gallery. 

1434,  or  perhaps  later.  Half-length  of  John  Arnolfini, 
Berlin  K.F.M. 

1435  ? Baldwin  de  Lannoy,  Berlin  K.F.M. 

1436  or  earlier.  George  van  der  Paele,  Hampton  Court. 

1436.  John  de  Leeuw,  Vienna. 

1439.  Margaret,  John  van  Eyck’s  wife,  Bruges  Museum. 

An  Esquire  of  the  Order  of  St.  Anthony,  Berlin  K.F.M. 

A donor,  half-length,  Leipzig. 

Bust  portrait  of  a man  with  a sharp  nose,  Johnson  Collection, 
Philadelphia. 

They  are  a ruthless  set  of  portraits,  each  individual  beheld,  and 
then  not  merely  depicted,  but  judged  beyond  all  appeal.  Cardinal 
Albergati  emerges  well  from  the  trial ; a man  of  strong  character, 
in  whom  we  note  the  marks  of  a tumultuous  nature  brought  under 
control ; a diplomatist,  capable,  thoughtful,  and  resolute  ; a great 
contrast  to  the  low-bred  and  rather  stupid  though  good-tempered 
subject  of  the  Leal  Souvenir.  The  red-turbaned  man,  who  may 
have  been  John  van  Eyck  himself  (it  looks  like  a portrait  done  from 
a mirror),  is  the  finest  of  the  series,  the  subtlest,  the  most  finished. 
Here  is  a wary,  observant,  and  canny  person,  refined,  not  likely  to 


68 


JOHN  VAN  EYCK 


go  blundering  through  the  world,  but  to  tread  delicately  and  with- 
out tripping  in  the  difficult  ways  of  courts  and  courtiers,  if  that 
should  be  where  the  chances  of  life  took  him.  As  for  Arnolfini — ^the 
Lord  deliver  us  from  being  caught  as  debtors  to  the  like  of  him  ! 
A sharp  man  of  business  if  ever  there  was  one,  Jesuitical,  mean, 
sly,  and  self-satisfied  ; nevertheless  there  is  reason  to  think  that 
he  and  John  van  Eyck  got  along  well  together.  Baldwin  de 
Lannoy,  who  went  on  that  wife-hunting  expedition  for  the  Duke 
to  Portugal,  is  a man  of  very  different  type — grim,  determined, 
narrow  perhaps,  but  trustworthy.  What  he  undertook  he  would 
accomplish,  the  Fates  permitting.  John  de  Leeuw  in  his  turn 
impresses  the  spectator  as  a quiet  person,  gentle,  affectionate, 
perhaps  sentimental,  observant  rather  than  pushing.  He  was  a 
rich  goldsmith  of  Bruges,  but  the  ring  in  his  hand  refers  rather  to 
an  approaching  marriage  than  to  his  craft.  His  wife  will  probably 
be  a happier  woman  than  Arnolfini’s.  As  for  Margaret  van  Eyck, 
her  husband  may  be  reckoned  fortunate ; she  possesses  considerable 
intelligence  and  discernment,  no  little  determination,  and  probably 
some  quiet  humour.  She  will  make  a capable  housewife  and 
sensible  companion.  Thus  we  might  go  on.  Each  picture  tells  its 
story  so  plainly  that  any  competent  novelist  could  set  all  these 
individuals  talking  for  us  without  the  least  difficulty.  An  imaginary 
conversation  between  them  by  Landor  would  be  worth  pages  of 
descriptive  writing.  With  the  exception  of  the  Arnolfinis,  who 
stand  full-length  in  their  own  beautifully  furnished  room,  all  the 
others  are  busts  or  half-lengths  without  accessories.  The  Arnolfini 
room  existed  when  Mr.  Weale  lived  at  Bruges,  and  the  very  ring 
remained  in  the  beam  from  which  the  chandelier  used  to  hang — but 
the  chandelier  was  gone.  What  a pity  ! 

John’s  small  Madonnas  likewise  possess  great  charm  for  their 
jewel-like  quality,  and  the  perfection  with  which  they  are  finished. 
In  the  Madonna  of  Ince  Hall,  of  1433,  both  Virgin  and  Child  possess 
much  of  the  sweetness  we  have  learnt  to  associate  with  the  work  of 
Hubert,  and  surely  nothing  could  be  more  delightfully  painted  than 
the  little  accessories  and  furnishings  of  the  chamber.  Unfortun- 
ately no  photograph  does  this  delightful  panel  any  approach  to 
justice.  The  Frankfurt  Madonna  of  the  same  year  reveals  John 
almost  at  his  ugliest  as  a painter  of  children,  though  in  the  Paele 


HIS  MADONNAS 


69 


Altar-piece,  finished  in  1436,  he  was  to  reach  a lower  depth. 
Everyone  is  ugly  in  that  yet  splendid  work,  and  everyone  except 
St.  Donatien  is  more  or  less  awkward.  The  aged  donor  is  altogether 
mercilessly  portrayed,  a lump  of  a man,  coarse,  self-indulgent,  a 
narrow-minded  bigot  of  little  intelligence.  As  for  his  patron, 
St.  George,  the  best  he  can  do  in  approaching  the  Throne  is  to  take 
off  his  hat  with  an  awkward  gesture  and  point  to  his  unattractive 
protege.  But  St.  George’s  armour  is  superb,  and  so  is  all  else  except 
the  people  in  this  astounding  picture.  There  is  a still  uglier  bust- 
portrait  of  the  same  donor,  an  original  study  done  on  canvas,  in  the 
Gallery  at  Hampton  Court ; perhaps  what  we  behold  in  the  altar- 
piece  is  the  best  Van  Eyck  could  make  of  him,  working  at  leisure 
upon  his  sketch  from  life.  That  this  picture  was  highly  considered 
is  shown  by  several  echoes  and  imitations  of  it  in  subsequent 
works  of  art,  painted  as  far  off  as  Avignon. 

More  delightful  than  the  most  charming  of  the  foregoing,  or  at 
least  as  delightful  as  the  Madonna  of  Ince  Hall,  is  a little  Virgin 
by  a fountain  in  Antwerp  Museum,  which  bears  the  date  1439. 
Here  John  is  almost  copying  Hubert,  and  is  entirely  reproducing 
Hubert’s  types  of  Virgin  and  Child  ; but  he  invents  a new  and 
better  background — a richly  woven  hanging  or  dorser,  upheld  by 
two  fluttering  angels,  the  very  butterflies  of  Heaven,  and  behind 
them  a garden-bank  with  a hedge  of  flowers  at  its  back.  It  may 
have  been  Petrus  Christus  who  so  carefully  copied  this  Madonna 
group,  setting  it  within  a sculptured  Gothic  niche,  in  a picture, 
once  Beresford  Hope’s,  but  now  in  the  Metropolitan  Museum  at 
New  York.^ 

I have  referred  among  the  works  of  Hubert  to  the  charming 
little  panel-picture  of  the  Virgin,  standing  in  the  nave  of  a Gothic 
church,  which  is  one  of  the  most  precious  jewels  of  the  Berlin 
Museum.  Perhaps  this  also  is  a late  work  by  John,  copying  Hubert, 
and  should  be  grouped  with  the  Virgin  by  the  Fountain.  A similar 
church,  as  has  been  noted,  appears  in  one  of  Hubert’s  miniatures 
(at  Milan)  in  the  Hours  of  Turin,  but  the  treatment  of  the  archi- 
tecture in  the  panel-picture,  with  its  beautiful  display  of  the 

' Mr.  Weale  (p.  161)  cites  me  as  stating  that  this  picture  was  “painted  by  John 
himself,”  but  he  does  not  state,  and  of  course  did  not  know,  that  in  so  asserting  I was  merely 
setting  down  what  he  himself  had  told  me,  T at  that  time  not  having  seen  the  picture. 


70 


JOHN  VAN  EYCK 


incidence  of  light  and  its  improved  perspective,  points  to  the  inter- 
vention of  the  hand  and  intelligence  of  John.  A careful  silver- 
point  drawing  of  the  same  subject,  differing  in  some  details  from 
the  picture,  was  published  in  the  Prussian  Museums  Annual  for  1915, 
the  writer  claiming  it  as  the  handwork  of  John  himself.  The 
excellent  reproduction  does  not  suffice  to  guarantee  this  contention, 
whieh  may,  however,  be  upheld  if  the  drawing  itself  stands  mature 
examination  and  obtains  a consensus  of  approval.  The  Berlin 
pieture  has  every  appearance  of  being  the  left  half  of  a diptych.  It 
was  well  copied  as  sueh  by  a good  Bruges  artist  in  the  year  1499, 
the  pendant  being  the  portrait  of  Christian  de  Hondt,  Abbot  of  the 
Dunes  (Antwerp  Museum). 

A singular  work,  by  all  accepted  as  Van  Eyck’s,  is  the  delightful 
monochrome  drawing  on  panel  of  St.  Barbara  in  Antwerp  Museum. 
It  is  signed,  and  dated  1437.  The  lady,  a handsomely  dressed 
Flemish  girl,  is  seated  on  the  ground  with  a book  in  her  lap  and  a 
palm  branch  in  her  hand.  She  is  just  a typical  Van  Eyck  figure. 
But  what  is  not  at  all  typically  Van  Eyck  is  the  elaborately  drawn 
landseape  full  of  busy  little  figures  in  front,  with  countless  fields 
stretching  away  to  a remote  distance  and  hill-town  by  a river. 
These  little  people  are  all  co-operating  to  build  for  St.  Barbara  a 
colossal  Gothic  tower  of  finest  fifteenth  century  character,  raised 
magieally  without  scaffolding.  There  are  cranes  and  workmen  on 
the  top  still  carrying  it  up,  but  of  course  so  intricate  a structure 
could  not  thus  have  been  built.  That,  however,  is  of  no  consequence. 
We  are  in  fairy -land  where  ordinary  rules  do  not  apply.  Un- 
fortunately the  sky  has  been  covered  with  a mess  of  blue.  Apart 
from  it,  the  delicacy  of  intricate  lines  by  which  the  whole  is  wrought 
out  is  just  so  much  magic.  But  was  it  John  who  drew  them  ? 
One  may  reply,  who  else  could  ? If  it  was  he,  then  here  at  the  end 
of  his  days  we  find  another  return  to  the  preferences  of  Hubert,  for 
this  landscape  would  have  delighted  him.  As  a landscape  com- 
position it  is  not  at  all  in  his  style.  There  are  none  of  his  hills,  and 
there  is  much  more  happening  than  in  any  of  his  foregrounds. 
Perhaps  John  was  asked  thus  to  treat  the  subject.  Did  he  intend 
to  colour  the  picture,  but  left  it  incomplete  ? We  can  hardly  think 
so.  It  is  the  blue  sky  that  was  not  intended.  John  probably  left 
it  as  he  intended  it  to  be,  an  outline  drawing  on  a prepared  panel. 


LOST  PICTURES 


71 


a sheer  tour  de  force,  which  neither  he  nor  anyone  else  was  likely  to 
repeat. 

Beside  portraits  and  religious  pictures  ^ John  van  Eyck  is  also 
recorded  * to  have  painted  a globe  of  the  world  with  all  known 
countries  correctly  depicted  upon  it  according  to  the  science  of  his 
day,  and  some  gem'e  pictures.  Such  was  a picture  of  a bath-room 
with  a lady  coming  from  the  bath.  She  was  but  “ slightly  veiled 
with  fine  linen  drapery,”  and  her  back  was  reflected  in  a mirror. 
There  was  also  a wonderful  landscape  background.  The  descrip- 
tion of  this  lost  painting  suggests  to  everyone  who  has  seen  a curious, 
finely  painted  little  panel  in  Leipzig  Museum  that  that  may  be  a 
copy  of  another  work  of  the  same  class  by  the  master.  There  is 
the  nude  woman,  the  light  drapery,  a dog,  a landscape  through  the 
window,  but  no  bath,  for  this  is  not  a bathing  scene  but  some 
incident  of  witchcraft  concerned  with  operations  on  a wax  heart. 
Lord  Huntingfield’s  Collection  contains  a painting  by  Van  Haecht 
that  introduces  us  into  the  interior  of  an  art-gallery,  with  sculptures 
around  on  the  floor  and  pictures  on  the  walls.  When  this  was 
shown  at  an  Old  Masters’  Exhibition  at  Burlington  House  (1907) 
everyone  recognized  one  of  these  pictures  as  probably  a Van  Eyck. 
It  depicts  another  nude  lady  at  her  toilet  standing  beside  her 
washing-basin.  A convex  mirror  hangs  on  the  window  mullion, 
and  there  are  other  accessories  beside  the  lady’s  maid  who  stands 
near  her  mistress,  fully  clothed  in  a stout  red  dress,  a very 
superior  kind  of  maid  indeed. 

The  last  picture  begun  by  John  van  Eyck,  and  left  unfinished 
when  he  died  in  July  1441,  was  a triptych,  ordered  by  Nicholas  van 
Maelbeke,  the  twenty-ninth  provost  of  St.  Martin’s,  Ypres  (1429-45). 
Sketches  in  Nuremberg  and  the  Albertina  show  how  far  work 
on  the  central  panel  had  progressed,  and  relieve  Van  Eyck  from 
responsibility  for  the  terrible  portrait  of  the  donor.  Both  Virgin 
and  Child  again  recall  the  tender  types  of  Hubert,  and  so  does  the 
Romanesque  architecture,  but  the  pictures  on  the  wings  cannot 

^ A lost  example  among  the  latter,  referred  to  in  a recently  discovered  document,  is 
a picture  of  St.  George  on  horseback  (panel,  four  by  three  palms),  “ de  mestre  Johannes, 
lo  gran  pintor  del  illustre  duch  de  Burgunya,”  bought  on  May  2,  1444  by  a Valencian 
merchant  for  the  King  (Alfonso  V).  See  Jose  Sanchis  y Sivera,  Pintores  medicBvales  en 
Valencia,  Barcelona,  1914,  as  quoted  by  A.  L.  Mayer,  Monatshefte,  vii,  1914,  p,  298. 

^ Weale,  pp.  174  ff. 


72 


JOHN  VAN  EYCK 


even  have  been  designed  by  John.  It  is,  however,  impossible  to 
judge  a work  so  tampered  with  in  its  own  day  and  so  badly  handled 
since.  No  one  would  have  suggested  John  van  Eyck’s  name  in 
connexion  with  it  had  not  the  historical  record  been  convincing. 
Mr.  Weale  considered  that,  if  John  had  lived  to  complete  it,  it  would 
have  been  his  masterpiece  ; I cannot  share  that  conviction. 

It  is  asserted  that  in  this  picture  the  perspective  is  for  the  first 
time  correct,  the  lines  converging  toward  a single  vanishing  point. 
Hubert  discovered,  or  was  taught,  the  theory  of  a vanishing  point 
for  separate  parts  of  a picture,  but  he  never  arrived  at  using  less 
than  two  vanishing  points  in  a single  composition.  Even  Broeder- 
1am  had  learned  that  parallel  lines  in  a single  horizontal  plane 
should  have  a vanishing  point,  a principle  applied  in  the  fourteenth 
century  in  the  School  of  Siena,  from  which  he  may  have  derived 
it,  but  both  Hubert  and  John  generally  employed  separate  vanishing 
points  for  lines  in  different  horizontal  planes.  When  these  points 
happened  to  come  near  together,  as  in  the  Rolin  Madonna,  the 
perspective  is  almost  correct.  It  used  to  be  said  that  the  Frankfurt 
Madonna  of  1457  by  Petrus  Christus  is  the  earliest  dated  example 
of  the  use  of  a single  vanishing  point  in  the  North  of  Europe  ; but 
it  was  difficult  to  believe  that  so,  unimaginative  and  unoriginal  an 
artist  as  Christus  should  have  been  to  that  extent  inventive.  We 
can  accept  the  advance  readily  enough  at  the  hand  and  from  the 
intelligence  of  John  van  Eyck,  for  his  art  bristles  with  intelligence. 
Here,  then,  we  have  him  carrying  forward  the  studies  and  inventions 
of  his  elder  brother,  as  he  likewise  improved  and  developed  the 
new  style  of  laying  on  colours  which  Hubert  had  originated.  On 
the  elder  brother’s  death  the  younger  seems  for  a time  to  have 
emancipated  himself  from  the  potent  influence  under  which  his 
early  years  were  passed.  In  the  Adam  and  Eve  he  appears 
to  have  abandoned  all  Hubert’s  ideals,  and  to  have  felt  able  to 
give  free  play  to  his  own  eyes,  mind,  and  hand,  entirely  to  please 
himself  and  to  express  his  own  strong  love  of  reality— of  things  and 
people  as  they  actually  appear  under  the  searching  gaze  of  a cool 
observer.  This  reaction  lasted  for  a few  years,  but  ultimately 
wore  itself  out,  so  that  in  his  last  years  John  became  Hubert’s 
follower  with  as  much  docility  as  he  can  have  shown  in  his  days 
of  actual  pupilage. 


HIS  LAST  WORK 


73 


So  much,  then,  for  John  van  Eyck’s  paintings.  Before  con- 
sidering his  school  and  the  effect  he  and  his  elder  brother  produced 
upon  the  art  of  their  day,  and  of  the  generations  that  followed  them, 
it  will  be  well  to  glance  briefly  at  the  human  medium  in  which  their 
work  was  done — the  court  and  industrial  cities  of  Flanders  in  the 
fifteenth  century ; but  for  that  we  must  open  a new  chapter. 

Note. — The  original  of  the  Holy  Face  or  full-faced  Head  of  Christ  by  John  van  Eyck, 
referred  to  on  page  119  below,  has  recently  been  discovered  at  a local  auction  and 
acquired  by  Messrs.  Browne  & Browne,  of  Newcastle,  who  were  kind  enough  to  bring  it 
to  London  for  me  to  see,  and  to  give  me  a photograph  of  it. 


CHAPTER  VII 


THE  COURT 

Nothing  is  more  difficult  for  a modern  individual,  who  does  not  make 
the  study  of  some  particular  past  age  the  chief  occupation  of  his 
life,  than  to  picture  to  himself  what  were  the  circumstances,  condi- 
tions, and  manners  of  life  of  another  individual  at  some  remote  point 
of  time.  We  read  of  wars  and  dynasties,  of  changes  of  government 
and  the  formation  or  splitting  up  of  kingdoms  and  empires,  but  all 
this  tells  us  nothing  of  the  home-life  of  families  and  societies,  and 
the  changes  that  took  place  in  their  daily  round.  When  we  find  all 
the  Roman  villas  in  Britain  abandoned  and  destroyed  about  the 
same  time,  and  new  centres  of  habitation  replacing  them,  we  have 
no  difficulty  in  concluding  that  a great  change  in  social  life  must 
have  occurred  ; but  it  is  excessively  difficult  to  form  an  idea  of  the 
degree  of  barbarism  that  followed,  or  indeed  whether  the  invading 
Saxons  brought  with  them  a higher  or  a lower  standard  of  living 
than  that  of  the  bulk  of  the  natives  of  Britain  in  Roman  days. 
Again,  we  possess  some  notion  of  the  stages  by  which  the  comforts 
and  conveniences  of  life  and  the  manners  of  decent  people  have  been 
improved  and  developed  since,  say,  about  the  days  of  Elizabeth. 
There  are  plenty  of  houses  then  built  and  still  inhabited  to  help  us 
visualize  the  life  in  them,  and  those  houses  are  rich  in  portraits, 
furniture,  and  even  actual  costumes  and  implements  used  by  suc- 
cessive generations,  while  contemporary  literature  aids  to  complete 
the  picture.  But  by  what  stages,  domestic  and  social,  civilized 
life  developed  from  the  barbarism  of  the  period  of  the  Invasions  to 
the  relative  civilization  of  the  sixteenth  century  few  people  have 
any  idea.  How  many  educated  persons,  if  suddenly  plunged  into 
the  domestic  life  of  a family  in  any  century  between  the  seventh 
and  the  fifteenth,  would  recognize  even  the  approximate  date  they 
were  landed  in,  unless  it  were  by  the  current  style  of  architecture 
about  them.  To  date  their  surroundings  by  the  manners  of  the 

74 


MEDIEVAL  MANNERS 


75 


people  would  perhaps  be  beyond  the  powers  of  the  most  learned 
antiquary.  In  order  to  give  precision  to  this  point  of  difficulty 
let  us  consider  one  or  two  concrete  instances,  selected  almost  at 
random. 

Philip  Augustus,  who  came  to  the  throne  of  France  in  1180, 
was  married  in  the  church  of  the  Abbey  of  St.  Denis.  History 
happens  to  present  us  with  a kind  of  snapshot  photograph  of  the 
behaviour  of  the  congregation  at  one  moment  of  that  ceremony. 
The  royal  bride  and  bridegroom  were  standing  before  the  altar, 
some  of  their  courtiers  in  close  attendance,  but  the  crowd  so  pressed 
in  upon  them  that  a high  official  laid  violently  about  him  with  his 
staff  to  beat  the  people  back.  In  so  doing  he  broke  a hanging 
lamp  overhead,  and  the  oil  poured  on  to  the  persons  of  the  King 
and  Queen  ! It  is  easy  to  fill  out  the  picture.  The  crowd  must 
have  pressed  and  jostled  up  to  within  a yard  or  two  of  the  Sovereign 
at  the  very  focus  of  a most  important  state  function.  The  court 
manners  of  the  twelfth  century  may  be  inferred. 

I recall  another  story,  but  cannot  lay  hands  upon  my  authority. 
A certain  Plantagenet  king,  perhaps  Edward  I,  in  company  with 
his  queen,  was  giving  audience  in  Rochester  Castle  to  a statesman 
in  a position  corresponding  to  that  of  a modern  prime  minister. 
The  room  in  which  this  audience  took  place  still  exists.  It  was 
the  royal  bedchamber.  A flash  of  lightning  struck  the  castle  and 
actually  passed  between  king  and  queen.  Owing  to  that  startling 
event  the  situation  happens  to  have  been  described  in  detail.  The 
king  and  queen  were  sitting  side  by  side  on  the  edge  of  their  bed. 
The  minister  stood  before  them.  The  room  is  quite  small,  and 
everyone  passing  to  and  from  the  ramparts  had  to  go  through  it. 
Imagine  King  George  and  Queen  Mary  seated  side  by  side  on  the 
edge  of  a bed  in  a small  bedroom  giving  audience  to  Mr.  Lloyd 
George,  while  the  Windsor  Castle  police  on  their  rounds  kept  passing 
through  the  room  ! Such  were  court  manners  in  the  days  of  the 
Plantagenets. 

That  invaluable  book,  Mr.  Coulton’s  From  St.  Francis  to  Dante, 
is  a mine  of  information  as  to  thirteenth  century  manners.  Every 
page  of  it  is  worth  reading.  He  shows  us,  for  instance,  St.  Louis, 
King  of  France,  and  his  brothers  visiting  a convent  of  friars.  After 
they  had  knelt  before  the  altar  “ his  brethren  looked  round  for 


76 


THE  COURT 


seats  and  benches,  but  the  King  sat  on  the  ground  in  the  dust,  as  I 
[Salimbene]  saw  with  mine  own  eyes,  for  that  church  was  unpaved. 
And  he  called  us  to  him,  saying,  ‘ Come  unto  me,  most  sweet 
Brethren,  and  hear  my  words  ’ ; and  we  sat  round  him  in  a ring 
on  the  ground,  and  his  blood-brethren  did  likewise.”  What  a 
picture  ! St.  Louis  indeed,  wherever  and  however  he  appears,  is 
always  the  most  perfect  gentleman  of  the  Middle  Ages,  but  the  bulk 
of  the  folk  of  his  day  had  manners  that  would  disgrace  a Bulgarian 
swineherd. 

It  was  the  slow  formulation  of  the  usages  of  chivalry  that 
effected  the  important  change  in  the  manners  of  the  upper  class, 
which  are  still  but  slowly  penetrating  down  through  layers  of  the 
population  and  may  ultimately  make  Europe  and  America  civilized 
continents.  It  seems  to  have  been  during  the  fourteenth  century 
that  the  most  considerable  change  was  effected,  especially  in  and 
about  the  court  of  France  and  the  courts  of  the  princely  art-patrons 
we  have  referred  to.  No  one  can  fail  to  recognize  the  charming 
manners  of  the  splendidly  dressed  ladies  and  gentlemen  in  the 
April  miniature  of  the  Hours  of  Chantilly,  but  the  picture  of  the 
Duke  of  Berry  at  dinner,  for  all  the  fine  garments  and  plate  and 
the  beautiful  furniture,  implies  table-manners  very  far  removed 
from  modern  composure.  Pet  dogs  scavenging  among  the  dishes 
on  the  table,  a number  of  courtiers  crowding  irregularly  about,  a 
strew  of  plates  apparently  scattered  anyhow  on  the  cloth— such 
details  obviously  imply  a still  rudimentary  art  of  behaviour.  Yet 
about  that  same  dinner  there  was,  in  fact,  no  small  attempt  at 
formalism,  as  we  shall  see. 

The  cultivation  of  manners  and  the  art  of  living  were  as  well 
attended  to  in  the  court  of  Duke  Philip  the  Good  of  Burgundy  as 
anywhere  else  in  North  Europe  at  that  date.  Of  course  they  were 
accompanied  by  much  priggishness  and  absurd  etiquette,  but  the 
fact  that  etiquette  was  attended  to  at  all  is  the  important  point. 
Somewhere  about  the  year  1490  a noble  lady  of  the  court  of  the 
Duke  of  Burgundy  compiled  a little  book  on  court  etiquette,  which 
is  a social  document  of  considerable  interest.  The  authoress  was 
Alienor,  Vicomtesse  de  Fumes.  Her  mother,  Isabelle  de  Souze, 
had  come  to  Flanders  in  1429  (in  the  same  company  as  John  van 
Eyck)  as  maid-of-honour  to  Isabella  of  Portugal,  third  wife  of  Duke 


77 


A COURT  ETIQUETTE-BOOK 

Philip  the  Good.  The  little  Alienor  spent  her  days  at  court  from 
her  seventh  year,  and  grew  to  be  a very  Mrs.  Grundy.  She  recorded 
not  merely  her  own  observations,  but  what  her  mother  had  told  her, 
as  well  as  some  at  least  of  the  precedents  recorded  by  an  earlier 
authority,  a Countess  of  Namur  (born  1372,  married  1391).  The 
period  from  which  she  drew  her  precedents  was  thus  almost  exactly 
a century,  from  about  1390  to  about  1490.  During  that  time  court 
etiquette  seems  to  have  settled  down  into  certain  fixed  forms  which 
toward  the  end  of  it  tended  to  be  relaxed.  This  relaxation  pro- 
voked our  authoress  to  set  down  what  she  considered  the  traditional 
rules,  in  order  to  their  better  maintenance  as  against  the  upstart 
forwardness  of  a mere  ruck  of  countesses,  viscountesses,  and 
baronesses,  of  whom,  as  she  says,  there  are  such  a multitude  in  the 
many  kingdoms  and  countries.  A sixteenth-century  copy  of  her 
little  manuscript  came  into  the  hands  of  M.  de  la  Curne  de  Sainte- 
Palaye,  and  was  included  by  him  in  his  Memoires  sur  Vancienne 
Chevalerie  ^ under  the  title  “ Les  Honneurs  de  la  Cour.”  I propose 
in  the  first  instance  to  illustrate  her  remarks  by  aid  of  the  aforesaid 
famous  miniature  in  the  Hours  of  Chantilly,  which  represents  John 
Duke  of  Berry  at  dinner  in  or  about  the  last  year  of  his  life,  1416. 

The  officers  of  the  household  present  at  the  banquet  should 
(according  to  our  authoress)  be  the  following : the  chevalier 

d’honneur,  the  cupbearer,  the  butler,  the  esquire  carver,  and  the 
varlet  servant.  There  are  also  one  or  more  “ tasters.”  As  she 
says  that  the  chief  servant  in  a mere  count’s  household  should  not 
carry  a baton,  it  seems  to  follow  that  the  richly  dressed  personage 
with  a baton,  standing  behind  the  Duke  and  calling  out  “ Aproche  ! 
aproche  ! ” is  the  chevalier  d’honneur.  The  others  are  readily  dis- 
tinguishable. The  cupbearer  is  in  front  on  the  left,  holding  in  his 
hand  a covered  cup  very  like  the  famous  gold  cup  in  the  British 
Museum,  which  actually  belonged  to  this  same  Duke  of  Berry.  The 
esquire  carver,  with  spurs  on  heel,  is  engaged  in  his  task,  cutting 
up  a dish  of  birds  with  a big  carving-knife.  Just  such  a knife, 
which  belonged  to  Jean  Sans  Peur,  Duke  of  Burgundy,  is  in  the 
British  Museum,  and  another,  of  Philip  the  Good,  is  in  the  museum 
at  Le  Mans.^  The  man  standing  beside  the  carver  is  perhaps  the 

1 Nouvelle  edition,  Paris,  1781,  t.  ii,  pp.  183-267. 

^ See  ArchcEologia,  vol.  lx,  p.  425. 


7 


78 


THE  COURT 


varlet  servant,  while  the  man  at  the  end  of  the  table,  who  looks  as 
though  he  were  sitting  down,  but  is  probably  meant  to  stand,  is 
likewise  carving.  The  garments  of  these  men  are  embroidered  with 
the  badges  of  the  Duke.^  Our  authoress  is  emphatic  that,  when  a 
prince  is  being  served,  the  server  should  carry  a napkin  over  his 
shoulder ; in  the  case  of  lesser  stars  the  napkin  is  to  be  carried 
over  the  arm.  It  will  be  noticed  that  the  carver  has  his  napkin 
over  his  left  shoulder.  She  tells  us  that  there  should  be  two  table- 
cloths, one  of  which  should  hang  down  at  two  sides  of  the  table, 
but  what  is  to  be  done  with  the  other  she  does  not  mention.  The 
salt-cellar  is  to  be  placed  in  the  middle  of  the  table,  where  in  fact 
we  see  it,  right  in  front  of  the  Duke,  who,  of  course,  occupies  a 
central  position.  This  salt-cellar  was  the  famous  piece  of  plate 
called  the  “ Saliere  du  Pavilion  ” in  the  Duke’s  inventories.  It 
is  in  the  form  of  a “ nef  ” and  has  a bear  modelled  on  one  end 
and  a swan  on  the  other,  these  being  two  of  the  Duke’s  devices. 
The  swan  is  also  seen  on  the  embroidered  dorser  ' over  the  Duke’s 
head,  of  which  more  anon.  She  says  that  the  salt-cellar  should  be 
covered  with  a cloth,  and  so  should  the  bread  and  the  other  dishes 
of  dry  food,  and  the  cup  should  likewise  be  covered.  We  see  no 
cloths  covering  anything  in  our  miniature,  so  that  this  detail  must 
have  been  a later  regulation.  It  is  to  the  Lady  de  Fumes  one  of 
high  importance,  to  which  she  makes  frequent  and  insistent  refer- 
ence. It  is  only  for  princes  that  such  covering  cloths  should  be 
used,  and  when  two  or  more  princes  are  entertained  together  it 
is  only  the  highest  that  is  to  be  so  honoured.  Thus,  when  the 
Dauphin  and  the  Duke  of  Burgundy  dine  together,  the  Dauphin’s 
dishes,  cups,  and  bread  are  to  be  covered,  not  the  Duke’s.  The 
covered  bread  should  have  been  beside  the  salt-cellar,  as  well  as 
two  little  silver  bowls  and  some  cut  sippets  of  bread  wrapped  in  a 
napkin  to  be  used  by  the  taster  in  tasting  each  dish  of  meat  when 
placed  on  the  table. 

Possibly  the  tasting  apparatus  is  hidden  by  the  carver  ; the  man 
beside  him  may  be  the  taster.  Trenchers  or  plates,  says  our  lady, 
are  to  be  of  silver,  and  not  more  than  four  of  them  are  to  be  placed 

1 Except  the  carver’s,  but  he  probably  wore  them  on  the  side  turned  from  us. 

“ She  writes  it  “ dorseret,”  Anglice  “ dorser.”  The  bench-covering  to  match  was 
called  in  English  a “ banker.”  See  Archceological  Journal,  September  1915,  p.  260. 


THE  DUKE’S  DINNER-TABLE 


79 


against  the  salt-cellar.  In  the  miniature  the  plates  seem  to  be 
inside  the  “ nef,”  which  can  scarcely  have  held  both  them  and  salt. 
Perhaps  it  was  only  called  a salt-cellar,  the  vessel  that  actually  held 
salt  being  the  smaller  upright  object  seen  beyond  it  on  the  right. 
The  covered  goblet,  she  says,  is  to  be  placed  at  the  end  of  the  table 
and  a little  tasting  cup  beside  it.  However  that  may  have  been 
when  the  table  was  laid,  the  butler  in  the  miniature  now  has  it  in 
his  right  hand,  and  perhaps  holds  the  tasting  cup  in  his  left  (appar- 
ently upside  down).  At  all  events  the  saucer-like  thing  in  his  hand 
is  a drinking  vessel,  for  immediately  over  the  butler’s  head  in  the 
picture  is  an  individual  actually  drinking  from  such  a dish.  A man 
behind  him  is  putting  something  into  his  mouth,  so  that  conceivably 
these  two  may  be  the  tasters,  but  no  one  seems  to  be  paying  any 
attention  to  them,  and  they  almost  look  as  though  they  were 
getting  a bit  for  themselves  on  the  sly. 

The  Duke  is  sitting  with  his  back  to  the  great  fireplace.  A 
big  fire  is  burning  on  the  hearth,  and  the  tops  of  the  flames  can  be 
seen  above  the  circular  screen  that  protects  the  Duke’s  back.  Those 
not  so  protected  hold  up  their  hands,  either  to  warm  them  or  to 
screen  their  faces.  Over  the  Duke’s  head  is  a dais  or  dorser  of 
state.  “ As  for  the  fashion  of  a dorser,”  says  our  lady,  “ seeing 
that  many  people  don’t  know  what  one  is,  a dorser  should  be  as 
wide  as  three  widths  of  cloth  of  gold,  and  made  just  like  the  canopy 
of  a bed.  A dorser  above  and  behind  a dresser  must  not  rise  above 
it  more  than  a quarter  or  half  an  ell,  and  it  has  flounce  and  fringe 
like  the  canopy  of  a bed.  The  part  behind  the  dresser  is  bordered 
from  top  to  bottom  on  both  sides  with  a different  material  from  the 
centre,  and  the  border  should  be  about  a quarter  of  the  whole  width, 
and  the  same  for  the  canopy.”  The  dorser  in  the  Countess  of 
Charolais’s  chamber  was  of  cloth  of  gold  “ cramoisy,”  bordered 
with  black  velvet,  and  the  velvet  was  embroidered  in  fine  gold  with 
the  device  of  Duke  Philip  the  Good  which  was  a flint  and  steel. 
The  Duke  of  Berry’s  dorser  is  embroidered  along  the  border  with 
his  swans  and  sprigs  of  orange  leaves,  another  of  his  many  devices. 
A portion  of  the  dresser  is  seen  on  the  left,  but  there  is  no  appearance 
of  any  dorser  over  that.  The  dressers  were  likewise  matters  of 
estate  about  which  our  authoress  is  very  particular.  Thus  the 
Queen  of  France  had  a dresser  with  five  shelves,  and  no  one  of 


80 


THE  COURT 


less  rank  ought  to  have  so  many.  It  was  regarded  as  a usurpation 
when  the  Duchess  of  Burgundy  set  up  a dresser  with  five  shelves. 
The  proper  number  for  Burgundy  princes  of  the  royal  house  was 
four.  Lesser  folk  should  have  three,  two,  or  one,  according  to 
their  rank.  A Burgundian  princely  dresser  should  have  four  fine 
shelves,  each  of  the  full  width  of  the  dresser  and  covered  with  a 
cloth. 

The  top  of  the  dresser  and  all  the  shelves  were  charged  with  plate — 
vessels  of  crystal  set  in  gold  and  jewels,  vessels  of  pure  gold,  and 
other  cups  and  basins.  On  the  Duke’s  dresser  were  three  drageoirs 
of  gold  and  jewels,  one  worth  40,000  ecus,  another  30,000.  These 
drageoirs  were  vessels  to  hold  sweetmeats,  and  it  was  the  preroga- 
tive of  the  person  second  in  rank  in  a room  to  offer  the  drageoir  to 
the  person  of  highest  rank  on  the  occasion  of  a ceremonial  visit.^ 
Only  the  two  lower  shelves  of  the  Duke  of  Berry’s  dresser  are  visible 
in  the  miniature,  the  others  being  outside  its  limits. 

The  Duke  sits  on  a long  bench  in  front  of  the  fire.  This  type 
of  bench  is  frequently  depicted  in  fifteenth-century  pictures  ; very 
clearly,  for  example,  in  one  of  Robert  Campin’s  wings  of  the  Werl 
altar  of  1438,  now  at  Madrid.  There  St.  Barbara  is  sitting  on  such 
a bench  with  her  back  to  the  fire,  and  it  will  be  observed  that  the 
back  of  the  bench  could  be  swung  over  if  required,  so  that  a person 
might  sit  upon  it  facing  the  other  way.  There  was  a long  foot-rest 
on  the  side  away  from  the  fire,  and  the  end  of  a similar  foot-rest 
can  be  seen  under  the  Duke’s  table  on  the  left.  The  Duke’s  bench 
was  no  doubt  similar  in  construction,  but  it  is  enveloped  in  a 
striped  rug  which  also  covers  the  long  footstool  below ; this,  I sup- 
pose, was  the  “ banker.”  The  only  person  seated  at  table  with 
him  is  an  ecclesiastic.  He  may  have  been  the  Bishop  Martin 
Gouge,  who  was  his  treasurer  and  afterward  one  of  his  executors  ; 
an  amateur  also  of  fine  manuscripts,  it  appears.  It  is  at  all  events 
evident  that  he  is  an  honoured  dependent.  He  and  the  five 
principal  household  officials,  as  well  as  one  obvious  menial  and 
the  boy  feeding  the  dog,  wear  no  hats.  All  others  are  covered. 
M.  Durrieu  suggests  that,  as  the  miniature  illustrates  January,  it  is 

1 This  bit  of  etiquette  lingered  on  till  the  French  Revolution  and  gave  occasion  to  an 
amusing  incident  in  the  bedroom  of  La  Grande  Mademoiselle  described  in  one  of  Madame 
de  Sevigne’s  letters. 


A DUCAL  BEDCHAMBER 


81 


probably  a New  Year’s  feast  that  we  are  shown,  and  the  people  to 
whom  the  chevalier  d’honneur  calls  out  “ Approach  ! approach  ! ” 
are  members  of  the  Duke’s  household  coming  to  offer  him  the 
good  wishes  of  the  season,  and  the  gifts  they  were  accustomed 
to  present  on  that  auspicious  anniversary — not  without  hopes  of  at 
least  equivalent  returns.  Possibly  among  the  incomers  the  brothers 
de  Limbourg,  who  painted  the  miniatures  in  the  Chantilly  Hours, 
may  be  depicted.  Who  can  say  ? It  is  worth  noting  that  the  table, 
being  supported  on  trestles,  was  intended  to  be  removed  at  the 
end  of  the  repast,  and  that  the  floor  is  carpeted  with  a plait-work 
of  rushes. 

The  position  of  the  Bishop  on  the  Duke’s  right  hand  was  not, 
according  to  the  Lady  de  Fumes,  the  most  honourable.  She 
relates  that  when  the  Duke  had  to  distinguish  between  two  ladies 
of  not  quite  equal  rank,  he  put  the  one  higher  in  rank  on  his  left 
hand  and  the  lower  on  his  right.  The  left  or  more  honourable 
side  was  called  “ below  ” and  the  right  “ above.”  She  who  was 
placed  on  his  left  was  below  his  heart  and  thus  in  the  most  honour- 
able position.  So,  at  all  events,  the  old  people  who  had  paid  long 
attention  to  such  matters  assured  our  authoress.  This  is  one  of 
the  provisions,  I suppose,  of  which  she  writes  that  they  have  been 
“ so  well  ordained  and  debated  at  the  courts  of  kings  and  queens 
by  great  princes  and  nobles  as  well  as  by  heralds  and  kings-of-arms 
that  no  one  ought  to  fail  to  keep  and  observe  them  both  at  the 
present  time  and  in  times  to  come.”  The  gentleman,  therefore, 
who  gives  his  left  arm  to  the  lady  he  takes  into  dinner  conforms  to 
ancient  custom. 

Unfortunately  I am  not  able  to  produce  a miniature  to  illustrate 
the  elaborate  account  our  authoress  gives  of  a ducal  Burgundian 
bedchamber  prepared  for  an  accouchement.  Every  detail  was 
matter  of  estate,  except  the  fire  burning  on  the  hearth,  which  our 
Mrs.  Grundy  is  careful  to  say  depends  not  on  etiquette  but  upon 
the  season  ! It  should  be  noted  that  a lady’s  bedroom  was  her 
reception  room  also.  In  it,  in  the  case  of  a princess,  there  must 
be  two  great  beds,  side  by  side,  with  an  alley  between,  and  a great 
high-backed  chair  at  the  end  of  it,  “ comme  ces  grandes  chaises  du 
temps  passe.”  There  must  also  be  a couch  on  wheels  before  the 
fire,  like  a truckle-bed,  such  as  they  used  to  push  under  great  beds. 


82 


THE  COURT 


A canopy  of  green  damask  fringed  with  green  silk  must  cover  the 
two  beds,  and  green  satin  curtains  to  hang  from  it  all  round  the  beds 
except  across  the  opening  of  the  alley.  That  could  be  closed  by 
other  curtains  on  rings  which  overlapped  the  fixed  ones,  and  could 
be  drawn  together.  There  was  also  a curtain  which  was  kept 
bunched  up,  but  could  be  let  down  between  the  beds.  A queen  of 
France,  but  no  less  person,  might  have  yet  another  curtain,  drawn 
right  across  the  room  from  side  to  side,  enclosing  the  end  where  the 
beds  were.  The  couch  also  had  its  canopy  and  green  satin  curtains. 
The  walls  were  hung  with  green  silk  and  the  floor  covered  with 
velvet  tapestry,  laid  as  flat  as  possible,  up  to  the  door  and  between 
the  beds  and  all  around.  The  beds  were  covered  with  ermine  rugs 
lined  with  violet  cloth,  wider  than  the  fur,  and  these  rugs  fell  down 
and  spread  on  the  floor.  There  were  fine  sheets  and  a bolster  and 
pillow  covered  with  the  same  fine  linen.  The  great  chair  was 
covered  all  over  with  cloth  of  gold  and  had  a cushion  to  match. 
These  beds  were  so  mueh  matters  of  estate  that  a pair  of  them 
was  provided  in  the  nursery  chamber  of  the  infant  Mary  of  Bur- 
gundy, while  her  cot  was  before  the  fire  under  a canopy.  Lesser 
nobles  had  only  one  bed,  and  their  couch  must  not  be  before  the 
fire  but  in  a corner  of  the  room.  Against  the  wall  of  the  ducal  bed- 
chamber was  a four-shelved  dresser,  laden  with  plate  ; and  in  a 
corner  beside  it  was  a little  low  table  with  drinking  vessels.  The 
anteehamber  is  likewise  carefully  described.  It  was  called  “ La 
Chambre  de  Parement.”  Here  was  one  large  bed  with  canopy  and 
so  forth  of  crimson  satin  embroidered  with  great  gold  suns.  This 
bed  was  not  made  up  as  though  to  be  slept  in,  but  “ covered  like  a 
bed  in  which  no  one  sleeps.”  There  was  a little  chair  beside  it. 
The  walls  were  hung  with  red  silk,  and  the  floor  carpeted  with  a 
velvet  tapestry.  There  was  a very  large  three-tier  dresser  laden 
with  massive  silver-gilt  plate. 

Green  hangings  were  de  rigueur  for  a royal  confinement.  Queens 
of  France  in  ancient  days,  said  Mme.  de  Namur,  used  to  be  confined 
in  bedrooms  all  of  white,  but  the  mother  of  King  Charles  VII  set 
the  fashion  of  green,  and  since  then  all  princesses  have  followed 
her  example. 

As  for  the  ordinary  run  of  nobles,  says  our  authoress,  they  must 
not  have  a “ lady  of  honour,”  but  a “ Dame  de  Compagnie,”  and 


A COURT-PAINTER 


8S 


not  maids-of-honour,  but  just  maids,  and  the  old  lady  who  looks 
after  them  must  be  called  Jeanne  or  Margaret  or  whatever,  but 
certainly  not  “ the  mother  of  the  maids.”  In  such  houses  food 
must  not  be  “ tasted  ” nor  must  things  be  kissed  before  presenta- 
tion to  the  lord  or  the  lady,  nor  must  there  be  dorsers,  nor  must 
they  call  their  relations  “ beau-cousin  ” but  plain  “ mon  cousin.” 
Nor  must  such  folk  wear  the  richest  stuffs  and  ornaments  only 
proper  for  royalty,  nor  be  served  at  table  with  napkin  on  shoulder. 
Nor  must  such  ladies’  trains  be  carried  by  women,  but  by  some  page. 
And  finally  there’s  no  sense  in  saying  that,  “ though  such  and  so 
was  the  old  fashion,  now  we  live  in  another  world  ” ; that  is  not  a 
sufficient  reason  for  breaking  old  and  ordained  customs.  But  our 
authoress  is  far  from  satisfied  with  the  way  things  are  going  : 

“ Toutes  fois  depuis  dix  ans  anya  aucunes  Dames  du  pays  de 
Flandres  ont  mis  la  couche  devant  le  feu,  dequoy  Ton  s’est  bien 
mocque,  car  du  temps  de  Madame  Isabelle  de  Portugal,  nulles  du 
pays  de  Flandre  ne  le  fasoient : mais  un  chacun  fait  a cette  heure 
a sa  guise  : par  quoy  est  a doubter  que  tout  irat  mal,  car  les  estats 
sont  trop  grants  comme  chacun  scayt  et  dit.” 

It  was  to  the  sumptuous  monarch  of  the  court  into  which  we 
have  thus  glanced  that  John  van  Eyck  was  the  official  painter. 
He  was  not,  however,  regarded  only  as  a painter ; he  was  the  Duke’s 
artist,  bound  to  produce  to  order  all  kinds  of  designs,  whether  for 
costumes,  pageants,  tapestries,  or  what  not,  and  to  apply  his 
skill  to  the  decoration  of  any  objects  that  might  be  entrusted  to 
him.  The  painting  of  pictures  was  merely  one  of  his  functions.  In 
fact,  in  France  and  the  territories  of  the  Duke  of  Burgundy,  at  the 
end  of  the  fourteenth  and  beginning  of  the  fifteenth  centuries,  the 
painting  of  panel-pictures  was  exceptional  work,  little  done  by  any 
save  court-painters.  It  is  not  destruction  by  mobs  or  time  that 
has  made  French  and  Flemish  panel-pictures  of  that  date  so  rare. 
There  never  were  many.  The  court-artist  was  a man  mainly 
employed  about  the  decoration  of  the  apparatus  of  court-life. 
Only  occasionally  was  he  called  upon  to  paint  a panel-picture. 
Beaumetz  and  Malouel  both  painted  on  walls  at  Champmol  and 
elsewhere.  Few  panel-pictures  are  recorded  by  them  and  other 
court-painters.  John  van  Eyck  was  the  last  of  the  old  style  of 


84 


THE  COURT 


court-painters,  and  the  first  who  made  panel-painting  his  main 
business.  It  was  during  and  after  his  lifetime  that  pieture- 
painting  on  panels  began  to  become  popular  in  France  and  the 
Netherlands — espeeially  in  the  Netherlands.  Of  course  the  making 
of  sueh  works  could  not  escape  guild-regulations.  But  John  van 
Eyck,  because  he  was  in  the  employ  of  the  prinee,  was  free  from 
the  restrictions  imposed  upon  their  members  by  the  guilds.  A 
given  craftsman  might  be  thus  emaneipated  from  rule  and 
custom,  but  he  did  not  thereby  eseape  from  the  temper  and 
spirit  of  the  time  as  formulated  and  expressed  by  the  guilds. 
The  whole  industry  of  Northern  Europe,  not  the  work  of  artists 
only,  was  organized  and  eonditioned  by  the  guilds.  Flanders  was 
at  this  period  perhaps  the  most  industrious  and  most  prosperous 
distriet  in  the  North.  We  shall  not  be  in  a position  to  enter 
into  the  spirit  of  Flemish  Art  till  we  know  something  about  the 
temper  in  whieh  the  industries  and  commerce  of  Flanders  were 
earried  on. 


CHAPTER  VIII 


THE  GUILD  SYSTEM 

Long  before  the  fifteenth  century,  the  blossoming  period  of 
Flemish  art,  the  provinces  of  Flanders  and  Brabant  were  famous 
for  their  wealth  throughout  all  Europe.  Already  in  the  thirteenth 
century  a queen  of  France  could  say  with  disgust  that  the  wives  of 
the  burghers  of  Ghent  were  as  rich  and  as  splendidly  bejewelled  as 
herself.  This  wealth  the  peoples  of  the  Low  Countries  owed  partly 
to  the  geographical  situation  of  their  land,  but  chiefly  to  their  own 
national  character.  Part  of  their  country  was  a redeemed  swamp 
which  none  but  a hardy  raee  could  have  chosen  for  a home.  The 
energy  which  enabled  them  to  beat  back  the  ever-threatening  sea 
was  not  likely  to  be  satisfied  with  that  conquest  alone.  They  were 
an  amphibious  race  and  their  ships  soon  found  a way  to  an  ever- 
widening  circle  of  distant  ports.  Commerce  came  naturally  to 
them,  for  their  country  was  situated  at  one  end  of  the  trans-European 
trade-route,  which  led  from  Bruges  to  Venice  and  thus  linked 
England  and  the  Baltie  ports  with  the  cities  of  the  Levant  and  the 
distant  East.  But  the  burghers  of  Flanders  were  not  only  carriers, 
they  were  makers  too.  They  were  the  weavers  of  Europe.  Their 
ships  brought  raw  wool,  shorn  from  the  backs  of  the  sheep  of  the 
Surrey  downs,  and  these  fleeees  they  wove  into  gold.  The  Wool- 
sack, upon  which  the  Lord  Chancellor  still  sits,  was  symbolic  of  the 
wealth  of  England  ; the  Golden  Fleece,  which  Duke  Philip  the 
Good  chose  as  emblem  of  the  order  of  chivalry  founded  by  him  at 
Bruges,  was  symbolic  of  the  industry  of  the  Low  Countries.  The 
history  of  the  period  with  which  we  are  concerned  is  largely  the 
history  of  the  Woolsaek  and  its  Golden  Fleeces. 

The  Bruges  of  to-day  presents  few  signs  of  its  aneient  splendour. 
Its  public  buildings  have  been  either  battered  or  entirely  removed. 
Of  the  palaees  of  its  merchant  princes,  all  have  disappeared  except 
two.  In  the  fifteenth  century  buyers  and  sellers  from  every  land 

85 


THE  GUILD  SYSTEM 


resorted  to  Bruges  for  their  trade.  The  merchant  of  Venice  and 
the  Jew  of  Lombard  Street  encountered  one  another  on  her  quays 
and  in  her  exchanges.  Sailors  and  traders  from  all  parts  of  the 
world  made  her  streets  lively  with  the  varied  colouring  of  their 
bright  costumes.  They  came  and  went,  and  each  left  something 
behind  him.  The  wealth  of  England  met  the  wealth  of  the  East 
in  the  market-halls  of  Bruges.  The  representatives  of  twenty 
foreign  princes  dwelt  within  the  walls  of  this  capital  of  the  Dukes 
of  Burgundy,  at  the  cross-roads  of  the  highways  of  the  North.  In 
those  days,  says  Mr.  Weale,  “ the  squares  ” of  Bruges  “ were 
adorned  with  fountains  ; its  bridges  with  statues  in  bronze ; the 
public  buildings  and  many  of  the  private  houses  with  statuary  and 
carved  work,  the  beauty  of  which  was  heightened  and  brought  out 
by  gilding  and  polychrome ; the  windows  were  rich  with  storied 
glass,  and  the  walls  of  the  interiors  adorned  with  paintings  in  dis- 
temper or  hung  with  gorgeous  tapestry.  If  but  little  of  all  this 
now  remains,  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that,  during  the  past  three 
centuries,  Bruges  has  seen  its  works  of  art  exported  by  Spaniards, 
destroyed  (when  not  sold)  by  Calvinist  iconoclasts  and  French 
Revolutionists,  and  carried  off  by  picture-dealers  of  all  nations.” 
Ghent,  Louvain,  Mechlin,  Ypres,  and  several  other  neighbouring 
towns  were  vast  manufacturing  centres.  Louvain  could  muster 
150,000  men,  amongst  whom  no  fewer  than  4,000  were  master 
weavers  employing  many  hands.  The  suburbs  of  the  town  were 
crowded.  At  Ghent  the  weavers’  guild  alone  numbered  40,000 
members.  The  city  could  turn  out  a force  of  80,000  men.  Day 
by  day  the  great  bell  summoned  the  workmen  to  their  tasks,  and 
the  surging  crowd  that  hurried  forth  rendered  the  streets  impassable. 
Life  in  such  towns  flowed  in  no  gentle  current.  Civic  feeling  was 
intense.  The  token  of  a town’s  freedom  and  individuality  was  the 
belfry  tower.  Many  of  these  towers  remain,  looking  down  in  their 
hoary  age  upon  the  withered  glory  whose  blossoming  they  beheld. 
Like  some  human  being  in  a second  childhood,  they  prattle  aim- 
lessly of  the  past,  and  at  the  old  stated  intervals  some  still  chime 
forth  the  notes  which  once  summoned  the  throng  of  thousands  to 
their  daily  toil,  or  dismissed  them  at  evening  to  their  rest.  Now 
no  multitude  listens  to  their  call,  but  the  hoarding  of  the  bill-poster 
echoes  it  back  in  irreverent  scorn. 


BELFRIES 


87 


The  close  knitting  together  of  religious,  social,  and  political 
life,  which  characterized  the  Middle  Ages  throughout  Europe,  is 
plainly  exemplified  by  the  organization  of  industry  in  the  Flemish 
commercial  centres.  Going  back  beyond  the  limit  of  precise  know- 
ledge about  social  history,  it  is  clear  that,  in  early  days,  when 
industries  began  once  more  to  raise  their  heads  after  the  anarchic 
period  of  the  barbarian  invasions,  the  workers  in  some  places 
joined  themselves  together,  by  a loose  kind  of  bond,  for  religious 
and  social  purposes.  In  time  all  the  men  engaged  in  a trade,  or  in 
two  or  three  connected  trades,  were  thus  linked  together  into  con- 
fraternities, the  intention  of  which  was  often  purely  religious,  the 
members  being  bound  to  be  present  at  the  funeral  of  any  one  of 
them,  to  pray  for  his  soul,  to  attend  certain  anniversaries,  and  so 
forth.  These  religious  services  were  no  doubt  often  followed  by 
social  gatherings  ; at  any  rate  the  bond  once  formed  was  not  slow 
to  develop.  It  was  the  time  when  everyone  had  to  struggle  for  his 
rights ; when  cities  were  wresting  charters  of  self-government 
from  their  feudal  lords,  and  when  every  industry  had  to  resist  pillage 
from  all  quarters.  In  this  lengthy  struggle  men  with  common 
interests  had  to  stand  shoulder  to  shoulder  for  their  common  weal. 
Thus  all  the  workers  at  one  trade  fought  together  to  obtain  favour- 
able conditions  for  their  work ; and  so,  by  action,  the  society,  or 
guild  as  it  was  called,  became  strong.  The  guilds  of  a town  came 
to  include  most  of  the  intelligent  citizens.  Community  of  interest 
forced  the  guilds,  in  their  turn,  to  unite  together  against  the  feudal 
lord.  From  this  union  of  the  guilds  sprang  municipal  government, 
the  guild  becoming  the  political  unit.  Thus  guilds  represented 
the  three  sides  of  mediaeval  life,  and  were  at  once  social,  political, 
and  religious  institutions. 

For  a self-governing  municipality  certain  buildings  were  neces- 
sary. A belfry  was  the  first  requirement,  and  in  early  days  its 
various  storeys  served  for  prison,  magisterial  court,  and  record 
office.  But  as  the  requirements  of  a growing  town  increased,  a 
town-hall  had  to  be  added  to  the  tower.  The  oldest  existing  belfry 
is  that  at  Tournay,  whilst  the  finest  is  the  famous  tower  of  Ghent, 
over  which  swings  the  Golden  Dragon  famed  in  story.  The  first 
of  the  fine  town-halls  was  that  at  Bruges  ; it  served  as  model  for 
the  still  more  elaborate  edifice  at  Brussels,  from  which  again  the 


88 


THE  GUILD  SYSTEM 


town-halls  at  Louvain  and  Audenarde  were  freely  imitated.  In 
addition  to  a belfry  and  a town-hall  for  governmental  purposes, 
and  of  ehurehes  for  religious  purposes,  two  kinds  of  publie  buildings 
were  still  required — namely,  market-halls  for  the  sale  of  various 
commodities,  especially  cloth,  and  guild-halls  for  the  several  trade 
guilds.  Of  cloth-halls  the  finest  recently  existing  was  the  noble 
structure  at  Ypres,  erected  in  the  best  age  of  architecture,  and 
one  of  the  most  splendid  municipal  buildings  in  the  world.  Being 
no  longer  required  for  its  ancient  purpose,  it  served  of  late  as  Hotel 
de  Ville.  The  Market-hall  connected  with  the  belfry  at  Bruges  is 
likewise  a famous  building,  striking  nowadays  as  a monument  of 
the  city’s  former  importance.  The  guild-halls  unfortunately  exist 
in  very  small  numbers  now.  Traces  of  some  of  them  can  be  found 
buried  in  the  midst  of  modern  plaster  ; as,  for  example,  the  Maison 
des  Charpentiers  at  Antwerp.  In  Ghent  two  very  fine  guild-halls 
are  fortunately  preserved,  but  even  they  are  only  battered  speci- 
mens, and  presumably  could  not  compare  with  the  splendidly- 
built  and  sumptuously  furnished  houses  which  were  the  pride  of 
the  more  wealthy  corporations.  Amongst  the  five  hundred  palaces 
of  marble  or  hammered  stone,  burnt  at  Antwerp  in  the  days  of  the 
Spanish  Fury,  many  no  doubt  were  guild-halls.  But  our  interest 
now  is  not  so  much  with  the  buildings  as  with  the  institutions  they 
were  raised  to  house. 

Guilds  in  the  fifteenth  century,  whatever  their  first  origin  may 
have  been,  consisted  of  two  classes,  according  as  they  were  chartered 
or  unchartered.  The  unchartered  guilds  were  voluntary  associa- 
tions of  men  and  women  under  the  patronage  of  some  saint,  usually 
for  a religious  purpose.  Such,  for  example,  was  the  confraternity 
of  Our  Lady  of  the  Seven  Sorrows  founded  at  Bruges,  the  members 
of  which  possessed  a chapel  in  the  cathedral,  paid  a certain  con- 
tribution in  support  of  religious  services  held  within  it,  bound  them- 
selves to  fulfil  stated  religious  duties,  and  participated  in  the 
spiritual  advantages  which  this  piety  merited.  Such  confra- 
ternities were  often  formed  for  charitable  purposes,  supporting 
perhaps  a hospital,  or  relieving  the  sick  and  destitute.  Sometimes 
they  were  of  the  nature  of  benefit  or  burial  societies.  At  all  events 
they  were  numerous  and  multiform.  There  were  also  shooting 
societies  or  clubs  of  men-at-arms,  the  members  of  which  met 


CONFRATERNITIES 


together  and  indulged  in  sport  and  social  intercourse.  The  three 
great  shooting  places  at  Antwerp  were  important  sights  of  the 
town,  and  when  Diirer  was  staying  there  he  tells  of  his  being 
taken  to  see  them.  In  Antwerp  Museum  is  an  entertaining 
picture  of  a fete  of  the  local  Archers  painted  about  1480-90. 
They  are  enjoying  themselves  in  the  open  air  or  within  a fine 
Gothic  building  close  by. 

Equally  numerous  throughout  the  Low  Countries  were  the 
guilds  of  the  Rhetoricians.  They  were  associations  of  artisans 
for  purposes  of  amusement.  The  members  composed  lengthy 
poems  which  they  recited  to  their  society,  and  every  year  meetings 
were  held  in  this  or  the  other  town  to  which  delegates  were  sent 
from  all  the  country  round.  Dramatic  and  musical  exhibitions 
were  also  an  important  part  of  their  business.  These  guilds  of 
Rhetoric,  in  fact,  performed  many  of  the  functions  of  the  modern 
periodical  press  ; they  attained  considerable  political  influence, 
and  the  Government,  being  unable  to  suppress  them,  did  what  it 
could  to  secure  their  support  by  flattery. 

The  chartered  guilds  were,  however,  the  most  influential.  No 
man  could  work  for  pay  in  a town  unless  he  was  in  the  service  of 
the  Prince,  or  was  a freeman  of  the  town.  Moreover,  he  was  not 
allowed  to  exercise  a trade  unless  he  belonged  to  the  guild  of  that 
trade.  It  was  only  as  a member  of  a chartered  guild  that  a work- 
man occupied  a recognized  and  stable  position.  In  the  socialistic- 
ally  constructed  Middle  Ages  independent  units  were  regarded  with 
little  favour.  Every  man  had  to  join  a recognized  association 
before  he  could  secure  his  rights,  and  every  association  not  only 
conferred  rights  but  exacted  the  fulfilment  of  duties.  The  guild 
entered  into  and  influenced  every  relation  of  the  workman’s  life, 
and  it  is  impossible  to  discuss  any  subj  ect  connected  with  mediaeval 
industry  without  considering  the  guilds. 

Painting,  to  the  mediaeval  mind,  was  a craft  like  any  other, 
and  was  therefore  organized  in  the  usual  way.  A painter  did  not 
look  upon  himself  and  was  not  regarded  as  a person  superior  to 
ordinary  discipline.  Fifteenth  century  painters  lived  like  other 
craftsmen,  and  were  paid  for  the  work  they  did  according  to  a 
fair  scale  of  remuneration.  They  lived  for  the  most  part  simply, 
working  unobtrusively  and  hard,  and  their  work  was  first  of  all 


90 


THE  GUILD  SYSTEM 


good  and  next  beautiful.  That,  at  any  rate,  was  the  intention 
which  the  painters’  guilds  had  in  view — ^to  secure  good  and  honest 
work  on  the  one  hand  and  to  secure  just  and  prompt  payment  for 
it  on  the  other.  The  guild,  therefore,  intervened  in  the  education 
of  the  youthful  artist.  The  lad  had  to  be  bound  apprentice  for  a 
series  of  years  to  a recognized  master  of  the  craft,  who  from  that 
day  forward  stood  to  him  very  much  in  the  relation  of  parent  to 
child.  The  master  was  responsible  for  the  apprentice’s  education, 
moral  and  technical.  The  boy  lived  under  his  roof,  served  him  at 
table,  and  about  the  house,  and  had  to  fulfil  his  bidding  in  all 
respects.  The  master,  on  the  other  hand,  was  bound  to  give  him 
instruction  in  all  matters  connected  with  his  craft.  He  was  also 
regarded  as  responsible  for  his  moral  and  religious  education.  That 
this  duty  was  seriously  regarded  is  shown  by  the  following  entry 
in  the  diary  of  Neri  di  Bicci  on  the  occasion  of  his  receiving  an 
orphan  as  apprentice  without  premium : “to  accomplish  this 

charity  and  for  him  this  good,  I took  him  to  be  my  spiritual  son, 
with  intention  and  desire  to  make  him  virtuous  and  obedient  and 
to  teach  him  to  live  in  the  fear  of  God.”  ‘ 

The  methods  of  painting  in  those  days  included  numerous 
processes.  The  artist  had  to  know  how  to  prepare  his  panel  and 
what  should  be  the  nature  and  quality  of  the  wood.  He  had  to 
be  able  to  prepare  and  lay  on  the  coating  of  fine  plaster  or  gesso, 
which  formed  the  ground  upon  which  the  colours  were  laid.  The 
evenness  of  this  coating  and  the  firmness  with  which  it  adhered  to 
the  wood  were  important  for  the  durability  of  the  picture.  Further, 
he  had  to  know  how  to  make  every  implement  and  every  colour  he 
wanted,  for  there  were  no  artist’s  material  shops  in  those  days. 

Neither  the  method  of  temper nor  the  improved  method  of  the 


1 Readers  interested  in  the  ways  and  ordinances  of  the  old  painters’  guilds  may  refer 
to  the  following  among  many  other  publications.  For  the  Statutes  of  the  Painters’  Guild 
at  Mons,  see  Devillers,  Le  passe  artistique  de  Mans.  For  Valenciennes,  see  Revue  univer- 
selle  des  Arts,  t.  x,  p.  315.  For  Ghent,  see  V.  van  der  Haeghen,  La  Corporation  des  peintres 
. . . de  Gand,  and  later  publications  by  Professor  Maeterlinck  and  Professor  G.  Hulin. 
Also  see  A.  van  der  Willigen,  Les  Artistes  de  Haarlem  ; D.  van  der  Casteele,  Keuren  1441- 
1774,  Lime  d' admission  ...  a la  Ghilde  de  St.  Luc  de  Bruges  ; E.  Baas,  La  peinture  flam, 
et  son  enseignement  sous  le  rigime  des  Confreries  de  St.  Luc,  in  Mem.  de  I’Acad.  de  Belgique, 
1881  ; Hans  Floerke,  Studien  zur  niederl.  Kunst,  Leipzig,  1905  ; M.  Houtart,  Jacques 
Daret,  p.  20. 


AN  ARTIST’S  EDUCATION 


91 


Van  Eycks,  in  which  varnish  was  used  as  a medium  for  laying  on 
all  the  surface  colours,  was  a simple  process.  Moreover,  the  pre- 
paration of  oils  and  varnishes  required  skill.  When  engraving  upon 
wood  and  copper-plate  was  invented  artists  were  at  first  expected 
to  be  able  to  design  for  the  wood-cutter,  and  this  involved  a further 
knowledge  of  tools  and  processes,  including  some  dexterity  with 
the  printing  press.  At  Tournay  the  sculptors  went  to  painters  for 
their  designs,  and  everywhere  sculpture  was  not  finished  till  the 
painter  had  coloured  it.  Moreover,  any  artist  might  be  called 
upon  to  make  a drawing,  and  that  was  in  a day  when  cheap  lead 
pencils  did  not  exist.  He  might  have  to  work  with  the  silver-point, 
and  then  his  paper  required  special  preparation,  which  he  had  to 
provide  with  his  own  hand ; or  he  might  work  in  chalk  or  charcoal, 
and  the  selection  of  materials  had  to  be  done  by  himself;  there 
was  no  dealer  to  do  it  for  him,  unless  the  guild  stepped  in,  as  we 
shall  see  it  sometimes  did.  The  difference  in  the  circumstances  of 
ancient  and  modern  artists  is  thus  very  great.  The  modern  student 
has  only  to  go  to  a shop,  buy  what  his  master  tells  him,  and  then  learn 
to  use  it.  The  student  in  old  days  had  to  know  how  to  make  what- 
ever he  required.  Certain  colours,  indeed,  like  ultramarine  which 
came  from  Venice  and  brick-red  made  in  Flanders,  could  be  bought  ; 
but  artists  had  to  know  exaetly  what  they  wanted,  and  to  be  able 
to  discriminate  between  good  and  bad  materials.  There  was  no 
go-between  to  undertake  the  task  of  selection  for  them. 

With  so  much  to  learn,  a lad  had  a good  five  years’  work  before 
him  when  he  commenced  his  apprenticeship,  though  in  some  towns 
the  period  was  only  three  years  ; it  varied  according  to  the  loeality. 
If  the  master  was  an  artist  of  real  power,  and  the  apprentice  a lad 
capable  of  reverence,  it  is  hard  to  imagine  any  arrangement  better 
suited  for  enabling  the  one  to  bring  his  influence  to  bear  upon  the 
other,  and  thus  to  secure  greater  permanence  and  a more  certain 
chance  of  expression,  even  after  his  own  death,  for  the  ideas  that 
perhaps  his  technical  skill  had  not  been  sufficient  to  formulate  in 
works  of  art ; and  for  enabling  the  other  to  enrieh  his  youthful 
and  enthusiastic  mind  with  seeds  of  thought  and  high  ambitions 
beyond  the  power  of  his  years.  On  the  other  hand,  this  method 
of  education  was  not  likely  to  encourage  originality.  It  tended 
to  the  output  of  good  work  of  uniform  type  closely  following  a 


92 


THE  GUILD  SYSTEM 


developed  tradition  and  keeping  in  well-worn  grooves.  In  the 
diaries  and  autobiographical  sketches  which  Diirer  has  left  us,  we 
gain  clearer  glimpses  than  almost  anywhere  else  into  the  inner  life 
of  a northern  artist.  He  does  not  say  much  about  his  pupil  days, 
except  that  his  father  delighted  in  him  because  he  was  diligent  in 
trying  to  learn,  and  that  in  the  workshop  of  his  master  Wolgemut 
he  had  much  to  suffer  from  his  fellow-apprentices.  No  doubt  in 
those  rough  days  a sensitive  lad  would  not  find  his  prentice  days 
very  easy,  especially  if  he  were  one  among  several  high-spirited  boys. 
In  that  fashion,  however,  he  had  to  gather  his  learning  together, 
and  results  prove  it  to  have  been  no  very  bad  fashion  either. 

Apprenticeship  ended,  the  youth  emerged,  not  yet  a full  artist, 
but  a journeyman.  He  could  now  work  for  pay  under  any  master 
he  chose,  and  in  some  towns  there  were  guilds  of  journeymen, 
though  of  course  such  guilds  were  not  among  the  chartered  bodies, 
and  must  not  be  confused  with  the  regularly  organized  painters’ 
guilds,  with  which  we  are  now  dealing.  During  his  years  of 
journeymanship  the  young  craftsman  frequently  (I  believe,  gener- 
ally) went  away  from  home  and  wandered  to  various  towns,  working 
everywhere  for  hire,  and  at  the  same  time  gathering  experience  of 
men  and  an  enlarged  knowledge  of  the  various  methods  of  his  craft 
as  practised  in  different  localities.  For  an  artist  these  years  of 
wandering  were  of  great  value.  If  originality  was  to  be  developed 
in  him,  now  was  the  time.  He  came  in  contact  with  a wider  range 
of  subjects  than  his  own  town  could  have  supplied  to  him  ; he  saw 
^ the  masterpieces  of  many  great  painters  ; his  eye  was  cultivated ; 
his  hand,  already  disciplined,  was  able  to  give  permanent  form  to 
whatever  struck  him  as  worthy  of  note.  Diirer  travelled  over 
South  Germany  in  his  years  of  wandering,  and  spent  time  in  several 
cities.  This  journey  producd  a marked  effect  upon  him.  Every- 
where he  had  nature  before  him,  and  he  studied  her  face  with  all 
the  enthusiasm  of  youth  in  novel  surroundings.  He  was  away 
from  parents  and  home  for  four  years,  about  the  usual  duration  of 
the  period  of  journeymanship.  At  the  end  of  that  time  any  youth 
of  ordinary  industry  and  ability  was  in  a position  to  take  his  stand 
as  a competent  workman,  fully  prepared  and  educated  in  all  the 
foundation  principles  of  his  craft,  and  with  eye  and  hand  practised 
to  fulfil  the  bidding  of  the  mind.  I suspect,  however,  that  such 


AN  ARTIST’S  EDUCATION 


93 


wide  journeying  afield  was  more  a German  than  a Netherlandish 
custom. 

After  giving  proof  of  his  abilities  to  the  satisfaction  of  the 
appointed  officers  of  the  guild,  the  workman  was  now,  upon  pay- 
ment of  certain  fixed  fees,  raised  to  the  status  of  a master  of  the 
craft.  He  had  to  take  solemn  oaths  of  honesty,  and  to  promise 
that  his  work  should  be  done  as  in  the  sight  of  God.  Henceforward 
he  was  a man  ; his  status  was  fixed.  He  had  a vote  along  with  his 
fellows  for  the  appointment  of  the  officers,  and  he  had  his  share  in 
the  property  of  the  guild.  His  duties  and  rights  were  definite. 
At  this  time  also  it  was  customary  for  him  to  take  a wife.  He 
was  to  become  a citizen  and  a householder.  But  he  was  no  more 
free  as  a master  than  he  had  been  before  as  apprentice  or  journey- 
man. The  guild,  through  its  appointed  officers,  still  continued  to 
watch  over  his  work.  He  was  not  allowed  to  use  any  except  recog- 
nized materials  and  tools.  If  bad  materials  were  found  by  the  guild 
inspectors  in  his  possession,  they  were  destroyed  and  he  was  fined. 
He  had  to  work  according  to  the  best  known  methods,  and  any 
instances  of  scamping  brought  to  the  knowledge  of  the  authorities 
were  punished.  The  guild  again  stood  between  him  and  his 
customers.  Every  contract  he  entered  into  had  to  be  registered 
in  the  company’s  books.  His  finished  work  must  be  valued  by  the 
appointed  officers,  and  if  the  price  had  been  settled  in  advance  they 
were  called  upon  to  state  whether  the  work  came  up  to  the  standard 
contracted  for.  In  case  of  a dispute  between  the  artist  and  his 
employer  the  guild  officers  were  called  in  to  settle  it,  and  to  see  that 
an  honest  bargain  was  honestly  fulfilled. 

When  an  artist  bought  raw  materials  he  had  to  bring  them  to 
be  approved  ; when  he  bought  tools  he  had  to  bring  them  to  be 
marked  with  the  sign  of  the  guild.  I remember  a regulation  of  a 
certain  guild  of  leather-workers  which  provided  that  if  any  member 
was  fortunate  enough  to  acquire  a lot  of  leather  of  more  than 
ordinary  excellence,  he  was  bound  to  hand  over  half  of  it  to  the 
guild  at  the  price  he  paid  for  it,  so  that  his  fellows  might  share  his 
good  fortune.  Similar  regulations  may  have  been  enforced  by 
painters’  guilds.  The  guild  in  some  places  acted  as  wholesale  buyer 
and  retailed  to  its  members  at  wholesale  prices  the  materials  they 
required  for  their  work.  But  guild  members  were  not  restricted 
8 


94 


THE  GUILD  SYSTEM 


to  purchasing  from  the  guild  alone.  It  was  only  when  a favourable 
chanee  of  buying  a large  quantity  of  materials  oeeurred  that  the 
guild  stepped  in,  and  the  members  eould  share  in  the  good  fortune 
if  they  pleased.  The  various  painters’  guilds  of  the  Low  Countries 
were  federated  together  by  a loose  sort  of  bond.  At  stated 
intervals  delegates  from  all  the  guilds  in  the  eountry  met  in  some 
town  or  other,  and  spent  a few  days  in  soeial  intercourse,  diseussing 
matters  of  common  interest,  and  no  doubt  at  such  meetings  new 
methods  and  improvements  diseovered  in  one  part  of  the  eountry 
were  made  known  to  the  representatives  of  men  working  in  other 
distriets.  The  remarkable  uniformity  in  types  and  proeesses  used 
all  over  the  Low  Countries,  which  would  otherwise  be  difficult  of 
explanation,  was  doubtless  due  to  this  periodieal  meeting.  It  was 
not  an  unmixed  advantage. 

As  the  workman  advaneed  in  fame  and  in  the  confidenee  of  his 
companions  he  beeame  liable  to  eleetion  as  an  officer  of  the  guild, 
and  if  eleeted  he  was  obliged  to  serve.  His  duty  might  then  be 
to  collect  the  contributions  of  the  members,  not  only  those  levied 
by  the  guild  for  its  own  purposes,  but  the  taxes  levied  by  the 
town  and  the  State,  for  all  of  whieh  the  guild  was  responsible.  Or 
he  might  be  appointed  to  value  work  done,  or  to  inspeet  the  tools 
and  materials  used  by  the  members.  Large  sacrifiees  of  time 
might  be  required  for  these  serviees,  and  the  only  reward  given 
for  them  was  the  dignity  pertaining  to  the  position  and  the  influence 
it  carried  with  it.  A guild  offieer  was  a man  of  eonsideration  in  a 
town. 

The  relations  which  different  guilds  bore  one  to  another  were 
deflned  by  law.  Certain  superior  guilds  interfered  direetly  in  the 
government  of  the  town,  whilst  others  did  not ; and  this  distinetion 
gave  rise  at  one  time  to  serious  local  disorders.  Another  question 
not  settled  without  mueh  litigation  related  to  the  erafts  allowed 
to  be  exercised  by  the  members  of  a guild.  It  oecasionally  hap- 
pened that  two  guilds  claimed  the  exelusive  right  to  a certain  kind 
of  work.  As  a rule,  the  work  which  belonged  to  the  members  of 
one  guild  was  forbidden  to  members  of  all  the  others.  For  example, 
there  were  separate  guilds  at  Bruges  for  painters  and  illuminators. 
Painters  were  not  allowed  to  make  miniatures,  and  miniaturists 
were  forbidden  to  paint  pietures.  The  Guild  of  St.  Luke 


FESTAL  OCCASIONS 


95 


included  painters,  saddlers,  glass-makers,  and  mirror-makers  ; 
that  of  St.  John  illuminators,  calligraphers,  binders,  and  imagiers. 
This  division  seems  unnatural,  but  if  we  follow  the  history  of  the 
thing  baek  to  early  times  it  is  readily  explained.  The  illuminators’ 
guild  was  of  much  later  origin  than  that  of  the  painters.  Even 
before  the  illuminators  were  enrolled  into  a guild  at  Bruges,  it  was 
deeided  by  a lawsuit  that  illuminators  might  only  use  water-colours, 
and  that  the  making  of  pictures  in  oil-colours,  or  with  gold  and 
silver,  was  the  exelusive  right  of  members  of  the  corporation  of 
painters. 

The  only  exeeption  was,  as  aforesaid,  in  the  case  of  an  artist 
in  the  direct  employ  of  the  Prinee.  He  was  allowed  to  do  any  work 
that  might  be  demanded  of  him  without  being  called  upon  to  make 
himself  a member  of  the  corresponding  guild  ; for,  it  must  be  borne 
in  mind,  a eompetent  workman  could  by  payment  beeome  a member 
of  any  guild  of  his  own  craft.  It  was  not  necessary  that  he  should 
have  reeeived  his  edueation  by  serving  apprenticeship  to  a master 
of  that  partieular  guild.  Onee  educated  in  the  approved  manner, 
the  payment  of  an  entranee  fee  to  the  loeal  guild  made  him  free 
to  work  in  that  loeality. 

Sueh,  then,  was  the  nature  of  a guild  in  relation  to  the  organiza- 
tion of  industry  ; it  was  equally  important  as  an  institution  for 
social  intercourse.  Very  few  guild-houses  remain  in  which  the 
interior  has  not  been  entirely  changed  ; but  one  at  Liibeck  contains 
the  large  room  on  the  ground-floor  in  its  old  state.  That  room  was 
the  meeting-place  of  the  guild-members.  It  resembled  a tavern- 
parlour,  and  is  divided  into  bays,  each  with  a table  and  benches 
in  it,  like  the  room  in  the  old  “ Cock  ” eating-house  in  Fleet  Street, 
now  no  more.  There  at  evenings  the  members  came  together  to 
drink  and  converse  after  the  labours  of  the  day.  Compare  these 
conditions  with  the  barrenness  of  a modern  working-man’s  life,  and 
it  will  be  admitted  that  the  mediaeval  arrangement  was  far  superior. 
On  great  days  more  elaborate  gatherings  took  place.  The  members 
and  their  wives  dined  together,  and  sometimes  entertained  illustrious 
guests.  Read,  for  instance,  Diirer’s  account  of  the  entertainment 
given  to  him  by  the  Painters’  Guild  at  Antwerp  : 

“ On  Sunday,  which  was  St.  Oswald’s  Day  [August  5,  1520], 


96 


THE  GUILD  SYSTEM 


the  painters  invited  me  to  their  guild-hall  with  my  wife  and  maid- 
servant. They  had  a quantity  of  silver-plate,  and  costly  furniture, 
and  most  expensive  food.  All  their  wives  were  with  them,  and  as 
I was  led  in  to  table,  every  one  stood  up  in  a row  on  either  side, 
as  if  they  had  been  bringing  in  some  great  lord.  Among  them 
were  men  of  very  high  standing,  all  of  whom  behaved  with  great 
respect  and  kindness  towards  me,  saying  that  in  whatever  they 
could  be  serviceable  to  me  they  would  do  everything  for  me  that 
lay  in  their  power.  And  while  I sat  there  in  such  honour,  the 
syndic  of  the  magistrates  of  Antwerp  came  with  two  servants  to 
me,  and  gave  me  four  cans  of  wine  in  their  name,  and  said  to  me 
that  they  wished  thereby  to  do  me  honour,  and  assure  me  of  their 
good-will.  For  that  I returned  them  my  humble  thanks,  and 
offered  them  my  humble  services.  Next  came  Master  Peter,  the 
town  carpenter,  and  gave  me  two  cans  of  wine  with  the  offer  of  his 
services.  When  we  had  long  been  merry  together,  up  to  a late 
hour  of  the  night,  they  accompanied  us  home  in  honour  with 
lanterns,  and  prayed  me  to  rely  confidently  on  their  good-will,  and 
to  remember  that  in  whatever  I wanted  to  do  they  would  all  be 
helpful  to  me.  So  I thanked  them  and  lay  down  to  sleep.” 

Such  social  gatherings,  in  which  the  newly-instituted  young 
master  could  meet  men  of  high  position  in  the  town  on  a footing  of 
equality,  were  of  great  value,  bridging  over,  as  they  did,  the  gulfs 
that  tend  to  arise  between  different  grades  of  society.  Notwith- 
standing the  aristocratic  organization  of  mediaeval  life,  the  strong 
line  of  division  between  rich  and  poor  did  not  exist.  That  has  been 
one  of  the  most  conspicuous  products  of  the  cry  for  “ Liberty, 
Equality,  and  Fraternity,”  under  the  echoes  of  which  the  reality 
of  all  three  was  banished  from  the  soil  of  Europe. 

Guilds  further  took  an  important  part  in  all  public  rejoicings 
and  festivals.  If  a prince  were  to  be  received  in  state,  the  guilds 
organized  the  reception,  each  undertaking  its  part.  On  the  great 
fete  days,  the  guilds  marched  in  procession  through  the  town,  many 
of  them  adorning  their  part  of  the  show  with  wagons  bearing 
tableaux  vivanis,  usually  representing  either  some  event  in  sacred 
history  or  an  assemblage  of  emblematic  figures.  Of  such  pro- 
cessions the  most  famous  were  the  Omegang  at  Louvain  and  that 
which  paraded  the  streets  of  Antwerp  on  Lady  Day.  Durer  has 
left  a description  of  the  latter,  telling  how 


A FETE  AT  ANTWERP 


97 


“ the  whole  town  was  gathered  together,  craftsmen  and  others  of 
every  class,  each  dressed  in  his  best  according  to  his  position.  Every 
rank  and  guild  had  its  sign  by  which  it  could  be  known.  Between 
the  groups  (forming  the  procession)  great,  costly  candles  were  borne, 
and  old-fashioned  long  French  trumpets  of  silver.  And  between  were 
also  many  pipers  and  drummers  such  as  they  have  in  Germany. 
The  whole  was  carried  on  with  much  din  and  blowing  of  trumpets. 
I saw  pass  through  the  streets,  in  ranks  widely  separated  one  from 
another,  the  Guilds  of  the  Goldsmiths,  the  Painters,  the  Masons, 
the  Broderers,  the  Sculptors,  the  Joiners,  the  Carpenters,  the  Sailors, 
the  Fishermen,  the  Butchers,  the  Leatherers,  the  Weavers,  the 
Bakers,  the  Tailors,  the  Cobblers,  workmen  of  all  kinds,  and  many 
craftsmen  and  tradesmen  who  serve  the  needs  of  life.  There  were 
likewise  the  merchants  and  traders,  and  all  their  hands.  Then 
came  the  clubs  of  men-at-arms  with  guns,  bows,  and  crossbows  ; 
also  the  travellers  and  pedlars.  Then  came  the  town  watchmen, 
and  then  a great  company  of  very  stately  people,  nobly  and  costly 
habited.  Before  them,  I forgot  to  say,  went  all  the  religious 
orders,  and  some  who  had  made  foundations,  all  in  their  various 
habits,  very  piously.  There  was  also  in  this  procession  a great 
body  of  widows  who  support  themselves  with  the  work  of  their 
hands,  and  observe  a special  rule.  All  of  them  were  clothed  from 
head  to  foot  in  white  linen  made  specially  for  them,  very  pitiful  to 
look  upon.  Amongst  them  I saw  persons  of  high  estate.  Last  of 
all  came  the  Canons  of  Our  Lady’s  Church,  with  all  the  priests, 
scholars,  and  treasurers.  Twenty  persons  bore  the  image  of  the 
Virgin  Mary  with  the  Child  Jesus,  adorned  in  the  most  gorgeous 
fashion,  to  the  honour  of  the  Lord  God.  In  this  procession  were 
brought  along  many  heart-gladdening  things  splendidly  arranged. 
For  there  were  many  wagons  with  plays  upon  ships  and  other 
stages,  such  as  the  company  and  order  of  the  Prophets  ; and  then, 
from  the  New  Testament,  the  Annunciation,  the  Three  Kings  upon 
great  camels  and  other  strange  beasts  most  cleverly  done  ; also  how 
Our  Lady  fled  into  Egypt,  most  pious  to  behold,  and  many  more 
things  which  for  shortness  I omit  to  mention.  Last  of  all  came  a 
great  dragon,  whom  St.  Margaret  with  her  maidens  led  by  a girdle  ; 
she  was  specially  pretty.  St.  George  came  after  her  with  his  esquire 
— a fine  knight  in  armour.  Also  there  rode  in  this  company  youths 
and  maidens  beautifully  and  expensively  dressed  according  to  the 
fashion  of  many  countries,  representing  various  saints.  From 
beginning  to  end  this  procession  took  more  than  two  hours  to  pass 
by  our  house,  and  in  it  there  were  such  a number  of  things  that  I 
never  could  write  them  all  in  a whole  book,  so  I leave  well  alone.” 


98 


THE  GUILD  SYSTEM 


Such  being  the  chief  industrial  and  social  aspects  of  a mediaeval 
guild,  let  us  consider  for  a few  moments  its  religious  functions.  In 
the  first  place  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  how  great  importance  the 
manner  of  a man’s  death  and  burial  and  the  prayers  afterwards 
offered  up  on  his  behalf  had  in  the  opinion  of  the  people  of  the 
fifteenth  eentury.  It  was  easy  enough  for  a rich  man  to  make 
arrangements  for  the  foundation  of  memorial  masses  for  the 
delivery  of  his  soul  out  of  the  pains  of  purgatory,  but  less  well-to-do 
folk  had  not  the  same  facilities.  Here,  then,  the  guild  stepped  in, 
and  its  work  in  this  respect  was  by  no  means  the  least  important 
in  the  opinion  of  the  men  of  those  days.  The  guild  either  owned  a 
chapel  outright  or  rented  one  from  the  authorities  of  some  church. 
This  chapel  they  furnished  with  an  altar,  an  altar-piece,  curtains 
for  the  same,  chalice,  paten,  and  so  forth,  for  the  service  of  the  altar, 
vestments  for  an  offieiating  priest,  deacon,  and  sub-deacon,  and 
often  a good  many  more  things  besides.  All  these  were  the  property 
of  the  guild,  not  of  the  church  ; and  they  are  always  mentioned 
in  the  inventory  of  a guild’s  substance.  In  addition  to  this  chapel, 
the  guild  secured  and  paid  for  the  services  of  officiating  clergy  on 
certain  occasions,  the  payments  being  frequently  made  in  accord- 
ance with  a regularly  drawn  up  and  signed  agreement,  which  stated 
with  utmost  minuteness  what  the  services  were  to  be,  and  with 
what  elaboration  of  music,  candles,  and  the  like  they  were  to  be 
performed.  On  certain  oceasions  commemorative  services  were 
held  for  the  souls  of  all  those  members  of  the  guild  who  had  passed 
away.  If  a member  of  a guild  died  in  poor  eircumstanees  he  was 
duly  buried  with  all  Christian  rites  at  the  expense  of  the  Fraternity. 
Connected  with  these  directly  religious  aets  the  guild  likewise 
exercised  charity  in  its  corporate  capacity.  If  the  widow  and 
children  of  a member  were  left  destitute,  it  was  often  the  custom 
to  relieve  them  at  the  expense  of  the  whole  body  and  see  to  the 
education  of  the  children. 

The  existence  of  this  religious  side  in  a guild  produced  an 
unforeseen  but  important  result.  If  a rich  man  wished  to  found 
a memorial  mass  or  other  service  in  perpetuity  he  often  preferred 
to  leave  his  money  in  trust  with  some  guild,  which  was  bound  to 
see  that  his  intentions  were  carried  out  and  to  be  present  in  person 
at  the  said  service.  In  return  for  this  they  likewise  received  a 


ITS  EFFECT  ON  ART 


99 


certain  sum  by  the  same  agreement.  A good  deal  of  property  came 
in  this  way  into  the  hands  of  the  guilds,  and  the  governing  body 
grew  in  importance.  The  ordinary  revenues  of  the  guild  were 
derived  from  contributions  levied  upon  the  members  and  fees  paid 
at  entrance.  The  tendency  of  all  such  corporate  bodies  in,  those 
days  was  to  grow  rieh.  Their  wealth,  however,  though  partly  spent 
in  good  cheer,  was  in  the  main  devoted  to  the  furtherance  of  the 
interests  of  their  special  craft. 

In  conclusion,  it  may  be  well  to  note  briefly  some  of  the  principal 
effects  which  the  guild  system  produced  upon  the  person  of  the 
artist,  and  thus  upon  his  art,  for  all  art  is  but  the  product  and 
reflection  of  the  conditions  of  the  artist’s  mind  and  the  manner  of 
its  working.  In  contrast  to  the  present  day,  we  may  note  the 
absence  of  the  effects  of  competition.  Works  of  art  produced  for 
exhibitions  labour  under  the  great  disadvantage  that  they  must  be 
made  striking.  In  the  multitude  of  their  companions  they  must 
make  their  mark.  The  old  art  of  the  guilds  was  quiet  and  reserved. 
The  workman  was  taught  to  make  his  work  first  of  all  things  sound. 
There  was  small  demand  for  “ striking  ” pictures  : altar-pieces  for 
churches  or  domestic  oratories,  memorial  paintings  of  a religious 
character,  and  portraits  were  the  kind  of  pictures  called  for.  All 
had  needs  be  durable.  The  altar-piece  was  intended  to  last  as  long 
as  the  memorial  mass  founded  by  the  pious  donor.  Everything 
in  those  days  was  intended  to  last.  Diirer  says  with  just  pride  of 
one  of  his  pietures  that  300  years  later  it  would  be  as  fresh  as  the 
day  he  painted  it ; and  so  in  truth  it  would  have  been  had  not  the 
flames  devoured  it.  Neither  in  his  work  nor  in  his  mode  of  life  was 
a fifteenth  century  painter  subjected  to  the  stimulus  of  competition, 
as  almost  everybody  is  to-day,  either  consciously  or  unconsciously. 
The  mere  making  and  spending  of  a little  more  money  would  in  no 
wise  have  bettered  his  social  standing.  His  rise  in  the  world  was 
in  the  main  dependent  on  the  opinion  his  fellow-artists  had  of  him, 
and  that  opinion  was  based  upon  the  soundness  and  workmanlike 
quality  of  the  thing  he  made.  Such  conditions  were  favourable  to 
the  development  of  a school  of  art  whereof  thoroughness  was  a 
virtue.  It  was  not  merely  the  result  of  chance  that  the  brothers 
Van  Eyck  invented  their  peculiar  method  of  painting  by  which  they 
were  enabled  to  produce  pictures  of  almost  unlimited  durability 


100 


THE  GUILD  SYSTEM 


and  of  unsurpassable  finish,  provided  sufficient  care  were  bestowed 
upon  the  work.  The  spirit  of  the  day  and  the  methods  of 
the  day  were  reflections  one  of  another.  When  men  live  in  a 
scramble,  they  will  paint  in  haste  and  buy  in  haste.  In  old  days 
they  went  more  leisurely  to  work.  Take  any  picture  of  this  old 
Flemish  school  and  regard  it  carefully,  you  will  find  that  only  so 
do  its  beauties  strike  you  at  all.  At  the  first  glance  you  are  liable 
to  pass  it  by.  When  you  get  to  know  it  a little  you  find  it 
impresses  you  more  strongly,  till  at  last  you  cannot  but  pause  long 
and  often  before  it  in  wonder  and  admiration.  This  completeness 
is  due  to  the  essential  character  of  the  artist’s  environment ; it  will 
be  found  everywhere  where  similar  conditions  obtained.  Many  of 
John  van  Eyck’s  pictures  must  have  taken  him  months  to  paint ; 
some  not  less  than  years.  Diirer,  who  came  rather  later  than  the 
period  now  under  consideration,  but  whose  spirit  was  singularly 
like  that  of  the  Flemish  artists,  spent  the  greater  part  of  seven  years 
over  six  pictures.  A man  was  not  continually  wanting  to  go  on  to 
something  fresh.  Every  work  he  undertook  was  intended  to  be 
monumental,  so  he  did  his  planning  with  care  as  became  a thing  of 
dignity.  The  spirit  in  which  the  work  was  done  and  the  method 
of  doing  it  reacted  one  on  another. 


CHAPTER  IX 


PETER  CHRISTUS 

The  art  of  a day  is  the  outcome  and  expression  of  the  life  of  contem- 
porary society  as  seen  and  felt  by  artists  working  for  that  society 
and  living  in  that  medium.  Social  organisms,  as  I have  elsewhere 
written  at  length,  ‘ have  a life  of  their  own,  altogether  different 
in  kind  from  the  life  of  the  individuals  that  compose  them. 
It  is  out  of  the  corporate  life  of  the  day  that  the  artist’s  ideal 
arises,  the  art  of  the  day  being  the  highest  and  clearest  expression 
of  the  common  ideal.  Both  Hubert  and  John  van  Eyck  were 
court  artists,  and  John,  at  any  rate,  lived  in  the  atmosphere 
of  courts  during  all  the  years  of  his  independent  activity.  If 
he  painted  for  others  than  his  prince  and  leading  courtiers,  it  was 
only  for  the  richest  merchants,  such  as  the  Arnolfini,  or  for  prominent 
churchmen.  There  was  no  force  operative  upon  him  at  any  time 
to  make  him  a popular  painter  appealing  to  the  multitude.  Thus, 
his  art  is  aristocratic.  His  portraits  would  satisfy  men  whose 
business  it  was  to  know  and  handle  other  men.  They  bear  the 
impress  of  a small  and  high  society  whose  chief  interest  was 
mutually  to  understand  the  characters  of  one  another.  Discern- 
ment of  character  is  the  secret  of  success  in  courts,  politics,  and 
large  commercial  affairs.  John  van  Eyck  stands  in  the  first  rank 
among  the  discerning  portraitists  of  all  time,  whose  works  still 
exist. 

Aristocracies  tend  to  appreciate  a solid  and  substantial  splendour. 
Tinselly  effects  dazzle  the  plutocrat.  The  Flemish  plutocracy  was 
not  emancipated,  aesthetically  or  socially,  from  the  control  of 
the  strongly  rooted  aristocracy  above  it,  nor  had  it  begun  to 
infuse  its  vices  into  their  veins.  Thus  the  rich  colouring,  the 

^ The  Crowd  in  Peace  and  War.  London  (Longmans),  1915. 

101 


102 


PETER  CHRISTUS 


glowing  surfaces,  the  jewel-like  finish  of  John’s  pictures  were 
deereed  quite  as  much  by  the  taste  of  his  patrons  as  by  his  own. 
If  he  came  to  possess  matehless  skill  in  rendering  glorious  pieees 
of  goldsmith’s  work  or  riehly  embroidered  and  brocaded  stuffs, 
it  was  again  because  his  patrons  loved  jewxlry  and  brocades  and 
prided  themselves  upon  the  possession  of  sueh  things.  In  Van 
Eyck  Duke  Philip  possessed  exaetly  the  type  of  painter  that  the 
taste  of  his  rank  and  day  would  most  admire.  He  himself,  his 
father,  his  grandfather,  and  their  princely  relatives,  had  worked 
hard  during  three  generations  to  supply  their  courts  with  just 
such  an  art  as  this. 

From  Jacquemart,  Malouel,  Broederlam,  and  their  sehool  up 
to  the  eulminating  power  of  John  van  Eyek,  there  had  been  a 
steady  progression  along  the  lines  determined  by  courtly  exigencies 
and  tastes.  Hence  John’s  art  was  not  and  did  not  aim  at  being 
popular.  Hubert’s  great  pieture  possessed,  by  its  mere  size  and 
elaboration,  a certain  popular  appeal,  but  there  was  nothing 
popular  about  its  design.  John  never  painted  a popular  picture, 
if  we  exeept  the  ugly  panels  of  Adam  and  Eve,  whieh  astonished 
by  their  novelty.  We  do  not  find  John’s  pictures,  nor  even  his 
types,  widely  spread  abroad  by  copyists  and  imitators.  Sixty 
or  seventy  years  after  his  death,  archaistic  artists  harked  back 
to  them  during  a few  years  of  dilettantism,  but  the  generation 
that  immediately  followed  him  did  not  imitate  him,  with  the 
single  exception  of  Peter  Christus.  John,  in  fact,  formed  no 
school.  Details  of  his  pictures  were  borrowed,  such  as  the  window 
with  the  orange  on  its  sill  from  the  Arnolfini  portrait,  and  the 
convex  mirror  in  its  baekground.  These  keep  cropping  up  from 
time  to  time  down  to  the  middle  and  even  the  end  of  the  seven- 
teenth century,  but  that  is  very  different  from  the  monotonous 
repetition  of  a few  designs  whieh  became  a habit  in  the  Netherlands 
schools  after  John  was  dead.  Few  of  his  paintings  attained  a 
wide  publicity.  They  were  made  for  individuals  and  enjoyed 
by  them  in  the  privaey  of  their  own  palaces  or  chapels.  The 
Pala  altar-piece,  indeed,  was  in  a public  position,  over  the  high 
altar  of  St.  Donatian’s  at  Bruges,  but  that  was  not  a pieture  in 
the  least  likely  to  be  imitated  as  a whole.  A first  glanee  shows 
that  it  would  not  be  “ popular.” 


COURT-ARTISTS 


103 


The  painters  with  whom  we  must  presently  deal  were  in 
different  case.  They  were  all  guild  men.  The  guild  system 
held  them  in  thrall  for  better  or  worse.  But  John  was  free  from 
that  thraldom.  The  only  contemporary  from  whom  he  borrowed 
was  his  own  brother  and  master.  Evidently  he  made  no  secret 
of  the  methods  of  his  craft,  or  his  inventions  and  improvements 
in  technical  processes.  They  quickly  became  the  common  posses- 
sion of  the  whole  Netherlandish  school  and  gave  to  it  a prestige, 
even  as  far  away  as  Italy,  which  is  a little  hard  for  us  to  understand. 
But  if  John  was  not  secretive,  the  school  as  a whole  seems  to  have 
tried  to  be  so  ; for  we  have  evidence  of  the  court  influence  brought 
to  bear  by  princely  Italian  patrons  to  secure  for  some  of  their 
own  artists,  sent  to  the  Netherlands  for  that  purpose,  access 
to  Flemish  and  Brabantine  studios,  and  admission  to  the  mysteries 
of  the  new  method  of  painting.  We  may  also  recall  the  story  of 
Antonello  da  Messina,  on  which  new  light  has  recently  been  shed. 

The  only  known  painter  who  has  any  claim  to  be  considered 
a pupil  of  the  Van  Eycks  was  Peter  Christus.  He  copied  the 
compositions  of  both  brothers,  and  may  have  come  into  possession 
of  their  studio  stock-in-trade.  His  original  work  does  not  bear 
the  Van  Eyck  stamp.  Merely  copying  does  not  make  a follower. 
Otherwise,  as  I have  said,  John  formed  no  school.  One  might 
guess  that  he  did  not  associate  very  intimately  with  his  fellow- 
artists,  but  lived  rather  in  and  about  the  court  on  a higher  social 
level  than  an  ordinary  craftsman.  For  these  reasons  the  pictures 
of  the  Van  Eycks  stand  out  with  peculiar  distinction  from  the 
general  run  of  even  the  best  Netherlands  paintings  of  the  century. 
The  rest  belong  to  the  school,  and  owe  much  to  it ; but  those 
of  the  two  great  brothers  and,  to  a less  degree,  of  their  contem- 
porary Robert  Campin,  are  their  very  own.  Each  is  a thing 
apart,  created  by  an  individual  for  an  individual,  largely  free, 
therefore,  from  those  emotional  elements  which  come  from  and 
appeal  to  a public.  There  is  a considerable  intellectual  factor 
in  John’s  appeal.  He  paints  with  understanding  warmed  by 
emotion,  but  his  emotions  are  well  controlled.  Fra  Angelico 
is  recorded  to  have  gone  down  on  his  knees,  his  eyes  streaming 
with  tears,  when  he  painted  Christ  on  the  Cross,  and  we  can  well 
believe  it.  John’s  eyes  under  like  circumstances  would  have 


104 


PETER  CHRISTUS 


remained  very  dry.  His  Virgins  are  as  plainly  the  women  of  his 
own  place  and  day  as  is  his  wife.  Their  throne  is  not  in  any  heaven 
of  poetic  fancy,  but  in  John’s  studio  in  Sint  Gillis  Nieu  Street, 
Bruges,  or  wherever  he  might  be  painting.  He  will  paint  you 
the  thing  he  sees  with  all  the  rich  and  pleasant  colour  and  play 
of  penetrating  light  he  can  devise,  those  things  also  being  visible 
to  him  ; and  he  will  paint  them  as  well  as  his  powers,  patience, 
and  wonderful  skill  can  accomplish  ; but  you  must  not  ask  him 
to  bear  you  up  into  realms  of  fancy.  His  imagination  plays 
only  with  fact,  and  rejoices  in  the  wonder  of  what  his  eyes  so 
beautifully  behold. 

The  school-painters  that  were  to  follow  him  had  different 
standards  and  lived  in  a different  medium.  With  them  the 
court  arts,  which  had  been  founded  and  developed  by  the  four 
princely  patrons  and  their  immediate  successors,  became  the 
heritage  of  a large  burgher  class,  enriched  by  manufacture  and 
commerce.  From  the  middle  of  the  fifteenth  century  onward,  it 
is  no  longer  the  court  but  the  plutocracy  that  sets  the  tone  of 
Netherlandish  art.  The  consequence  is  what  might  be  expected. 
Originality  tends  to  evaporate.  The  new  patrons  wanted  a 
definite  class  of  goods,  something  up  to  sample,  and  the  guilds 
existed  to  provide  it.  They  would  guarantee  to  the  artist  his 
pay,  and  to  the  buyer  the  goods  contracted  for.  Fortunately 
for  us,  the  “ samples  ” were  of  high  quality,  and  the  consequent 
output  remained  remarkably  good  for  many  decades. 

Before  proceeding  to  deal  with  the  popular  school,  which 
descended  from  Campin,  who  was  the  Van  Eycks’  contemporary, 
it  will  be  more  convenient  to  consider,  out  of  its  strictly 
chronological  sequence,  the  work  of  the  one  known  artist,  Peter 
Christus,  who  directly  followed  the  Van  Eyck  tradition.  Thanks 
to  Mr.  Weale’s  researches,  we  know  a few  dates  and  other  skeleton 
facts  about  his  life.  He  was  born  at  Baerle  near  Tilbourg  in  North 
Brabant,  not  long  after  1400.  He  bought  a house  and  settled 
in  Bruges  in  1443,  acquired  the  freedom  of  the  city  in  the  following 
year,  and  settled  down  for  life  to  exercise  his  craft  there.  Where 
he  learnt  it  no  one  knows  ; not  at  Bruges,  from  John  van  Eyck, 
for  he  was  dead  three  years  before  Christus  came  to  that  city, 
but  possibly  from  Hubert,  though  all  the  critics  swear  to  the 


EVENTS  OF  HIS  LIFE 


105 


contrary. ‘ Dates  on  a few  pietures  enable  us  to  follow  him  at 
work  during  the  forties,  and  we  know  that  he  was  summoned 
to  Cambrai  in  1453  to  make  three  copies  of  a miraeulous  pieture 
of  the  Virgin.  They  were  finished  in  1454.  He  was  probably  in 
Italy  in  1456.^  His  name  appears  in  unimportant  entries  at  Bruges 
in  the  sixties.  He  died  there  in  1472  or  1473. 

It  has  been  thought  that  the  hand  of  Peter  may  be  traeed  in 
a eertain  group  of  miniatures  in  the  Hours  of  Turin.  If  that 
could  be  proved,  the  personal  connexion  between  Hubert  and 
our  artist  would  be  established.  We  eome  a step  nearer,  however, 
with  the  delightful  little  panel  at  Berlin  in  whieh  St.  Barbara 
presents  the  kneeling  monk,  Herman  Steenken,  to  the  Virgin 
and  Child.  As  Steenken  died  in  April  1428,  it  would  seem  that 
the  pieture  must  have  been  painted  before  then.  The  composition 
of  it  is  obviously  derived  from  a similar  pieture  by  Hubert  (with 
the  addition  of  another  saintess)  now  in  the  G.  de  Rothsehild  Collee- 
tion  in  Paris,  but  the  landscape  and  a number  of  details  are  ehanged, 
and  so  are  the  facial  types.  Steenken  in  the  Rothsehild  picture 
is  exactly  the  same  in  pose  and  drapery,  but  his  face  is  several 
years  younger.  If  Peter  painted  the  Berlin  example,  it  shows  him, 
not  more  than  two  years  after  Hubert’s  death,  carrying  on  the 
Van  Eyck  tradition  with  no  little  exactitude.  Moreover,  the 
Berlin  picture  is  in  many  respeets  reminiscent  of  the  group  of 
miniatures  above  referred  to.  The  landseape  with  the  evening 
light  in  the  sky,  the  multiplieity  of  details  in  the  eity  and  river 
below,  the  fading  away  of  the  distanee  into  light,  are  all  so  many 
links  with  the  art  of  Hubert,  though  they  are  not  eopied  from  the 
partieular  picture  which  was  obviously  set  before  Christus  by 
Steenken  for  a model.  As  for  the  portrait,  the  snub  nose  has 
beeome  snubbier,  the  fat  eheeks  more  bloated,  the  mouth  grosser 

1 If  he  did  not  learn  from  one  of  the  Van  Eycks,  who  else  was  there  who  could  have 
taught  him  their  method  of  painting  ? 

^ The  inclusion  in  1456,  among  the  provvigionati  of  the  Duke  of  Milan,  of  one 
“Piero  di  Burges”  can  be  quoted  in  favour  of  the  view  that  Christus  visited  Italy.  On 
the  list  are  also  one  “Maestro  Zannino,”  who  is  doubtless  Zanetto  Bugatto,  and  one 
“ Antonello  da  Sicilia,”  whom  we  need  feel  no  hesitation  in  identifying  with  Antonello 
da  Messina,  whose  affinity  to  the  Flemish  School  is  thus  fully  explained.  See  C.  de 
Mandach  in  Mon.  et  Mem.  Piot.,  xvi,  1909,  pp.  196  sqq.  (following  up  a suggestion  of 
Dr.  L.  Venturi’s). 


106  PETER  CHRISTUS 

than  when  the  reverend  father  sat  to  Hubert.  Age,  alas  ! did  not 
spiritualize  him. 

In  a Madonna  ^ in  New  York  Museum  (once  in  the  Beresford- 
Hope  Collection),  we  find  Christus  copying  Hubert  again,  for  the 
figures  are  taken  straight  from  the  same  original  as  that  repeated 
by  John  van  Eyck  in  the  little  Virgin  by  the  Fountain.  Christus, 
however,  sets  her  in  an  elaborate  Gothic  niche,  adorned  with 
sculptured  figures  of  the  Church,  the  Synagogue,  and  so  forth. 
The  architecture  is  weedy  and  over-slender,  but  accorded  with 
the  taste  of  the  day.  It  is  possible  to  imagine  some  connexion 
between  this  Madonna  and  the  miraculous  Virgin  of  Cambrai, 
whereof  certain  engravings  exist.  That  was  a Byzantine  picture, 
very  famous  in  its  day,  and  likely  to  have  been  known  to  the 
Van  Eycks.  If  the  existing  copy  of  the  Fountain  of  Living  Water 
at  Madrid  was  painted  by  our  artist,  as  has  often  been  suggested, 
it  may  be  grouped  satisfactorily  with  other  works  of  his  early 
period.  The  same  is  true  of  a panel  at  Copenhagen,  half  a diptych 
or  the  wing  of  a picture,  to  which  a late  Flemish  painter,  often 
described  as  Van  Dyck,  added  a Virgin  and  Child  for  St.  Anthony’s 
protege  to  kneel  to.  Mr.  Weale  insists  that  the  painter  of  the 
donor’s  panel  was  Hubert  himself,  and  cites  in  proof  the  will, 
dated  9th  March,  1426,  of  Robert  Poortier,  of  Ghent,  in  which 
he  bequeathed  a picture  of  St.  Anthony  painted  by  Master  Hubert. 
Of  course,  it  might  have  been  this  very  picture,  if  only  it  had 
been  painted  by  Van  Eyck,  but  almost  every  critic  agrees  that  it 
displays  the  handiwork  of  Christus,  though  the  composition 
may  be  thought  to  resemble  that  of  the  greater  artist,  while  there 
is  nothing  to  prevent  Hubert  from  having  painted  a St.  Anthony 
which  has  disappeared.  Moreover,  the  bag  worn  by  the  kneeling 
donor  actually  appears  in  another  picture  by  Christus,  the  portrait 
in  the  National  Gallery,  though  that  coincidence  might  be  explained. 

These  pictures,  if  they  are  accepted  as  the  work  of  Christus, 
certainly  tend  to  the  conclusion  that  he  learned  his  art  in  the 
studio  of  Hubert  van  Eyck.  They  are  painted  with  delicacy  of 
touch  and  fineness  of  detail,  and  the  nearer  they  come  to  the  style 
of  the  master  the  better  they  are.  The  Crucifixion  at  Worlitz 
shows  our  artist  considerably  less  dependent  upon  his  prototype. 

^ Friedlander  does  not  ascribe  this  picture  to  Christus. 


HIS  PAINTINGS 


107 


Certain  critics  have  denied  that  it  can  be  by  Christus  at  all,  and 
have  claimed  it  for  some  other  Netherlander,  painting  in  Italy. 
The  panel  is  not  of  oak,  but  of  poplar,  which  points  to  the  South, 
but  the  picture  upon  it  presents  no  obvious  Italian  characteristics, 
though  one  can  imagine  them  if  one  tries.  We  have  reason 
to  believe  that  Christus  visited  Italy  and  taught  Antonello  da 
Messina  the  Van  Eyck  method.  As  for  the  treatment  of  the 
subject,  it  is  as  little  dramatic  as  can  be.  Everyone’s  emotions 
are  mechanical.  All  are  actors,  and  bad  at  that.  There  is, 
however,  a single  figure  of  considerable  charm — the  white-robed 
Magdalen  raising  her  clasped  hands  aloft.  Her  little  round  head, 
her  soft  hair,  her  white  dress,  are  pretty  with  a sweet  simplicity  ; 
but  the  figure  is  here  out  of  place,  though  it  would  have  been 
at  home  in  the  Steenken  Madonna.  Beside  her  stands  another 
woman,  who  turns  her  back.  We  have  seen  something  like  her 
elsewhere.  Surely  she  has  been  borrowed  from  the  entourage  of 
Robert  Campin  ! Possibly  the  works  of  that  bold  master  had 
impressed  Christus  and  turned  him  from  his  old  ways,  though 
Campin  would  have  scorned  the  groggy-legged  soldiers  on  the 
right  and  the  general  feebleness  of  emotion  throughout. 

We  cannot  pass  without  mention  the  Frankfurt  Madonna, 
dated  1447  (others  read  1457)  ; but  what  a travesty  of  sweet 
St.  Francis  is  this  standing  figure  by  the  throne  ! The  picture 
is  interesting  because,  after  John  van  Eyck’s  unfinished  altar-piece, 
it  is,  as  stated  above,  the  earliest  with  a date  in  which  the  perspective 
leads  correctly  to  a single  vanishing  point.  Moreover,  the  carpet 
on  the  floor  is  very  like  one  introduced  by  John  into  his  Lucca 
Madonna,  and  is  generally  said  to  be  the  same.  The  painting  is 
workmanlike,  but  manifests  once  for  all  how  little  of  religious 
imagination  or  fervour  there  was  within  the  solid  head  of  Christus. 
When,  however,  he  came  down  from  heaven  to  earth  he  was  more 
at  home.  Witness  his  far  from  contemptible  portraits.  They 
are  not  comparable  to  Van  Eyck’s,  of  course,  nor  even  to  Campin’s, 
but  how  grateful  we  are  for  them,  none  the  less  ! Earliest  in 
date  may  be  the  Salting  picture,  perhaps  the  left  half  of  a diptych, 
which  shows  us  a young  man  reading  his  hours  and  wearing  the 
same  bag  as  the  protege  of  St.  Anthony.  Moreover,  there  is  a 
family  likeness  between  the  youth  and  that  personage,  and  the 


108 


PETER  CHRISTUS 


bag  is  more  likely  to  be  an  heirloom  than  any  pieee  of  studio 
property.  When  one  has  one’s  portrait  painted  one  does  not  wear 
studio  properties.  He  is  not  a brilliant  individual,  this  youth 
with  the  weak  mouth  and  the  wide-opened  eyes — stolid,  rather, 
and  harmless,  who  might  scramble  through  life  without  disaster. 
It  would  be  a pleasure  to  see  more  of  the  landscape.  The  doorway 
on  the  left  is  adorned  with  sculptures  recalling  those  in  the  New 
York  Madonna. 

A pair  of  portraits  equal  in  dimensions  and  matching  one  another 
in  background  are  the  Edward  Grimston  in  the  Verulam  Collection 
and  the  lady  at  Berlin,  the  former  dated  1446.  Man  and  wife 
we  guess  them  to  be — Grimston’s  first  wife,  if  she  was  painted  in 
the  same  year.'  According  to  Waagen,  the  original  frame  bore 
the  painter’s  name,  and  recorded  the  fact  that  the  lady  was 
a Talbot.  It  is  remarkable  that  Christus  should  blunder  so  in 
the  drawing  of  eyes.  The  lady  can  hardly  have  been  so  cockeyed 
as  he  makes  her.  He  does  better  with  Grimston.  To  me  his 
picture  seems  later  in  date  than  hers,  but  the  condition  of  the  two 
works  may  be  responsible  for  the  divergence.  At  all  events, 
Christus  painted  the  man  in  a bolder  style  than  before,  blocking 
out  the  masses  of  shadow  with  original  force,  but  pursuing  the  like- 
ness into  less  detail  than  the  Van  Eycks. 

A portrait  of  a Carthusian  monk  as  a saint  is  in  the  collection  of 
the  Marquis  de  Dos  Aguas  at  Valencia,  and  has  recently  been 
published  by  Friedlander.  It  is  a completer  presentment  of  a 
human  character  than  any  of  the  foregoing.  The  head  is  modelled 

1 The  trouble  is  that  the  name  of  Grimston’s  first  wife  is  not  known.  It  would 
be  sueh  a comfort  if  we  could  prove  that  she  was  a Talbot.  Franks  in  Archceologia  (xl, 
p.  470)  shows  that  her  arms  were  probably  “ Gules  three  bars  gemelles  argent,”  and  he 
adds  that  she  was  probably  a member  of  Margaret  of  Anjou’s  suite.  She  must  have 
accompanied  Grimston  to  Flanders  if  Christus  painted  her  portrait,  but  the  ten  pub- 
lished volumes  (1863-1906)  of  Inventory  of  Documents  of  the  Archives  departementales 
du  Nord  (Lille),  though  they  mention  Grimston  and  his  fellow-envoy  Kent  in  1446,  at 
dates  covered  by  the  entries  from  Rymer,  ignore  any  wife.  In  the  Calendar  of  Entries 
in  the  Papal  Registers  relating  to  Great  Britain  and  Ireland : Papal  Letters,  vol.  x (ed. 
J.  A.  Twemlow),  1915,  p.  305,  an  entry  under  date  March  16,  144|,  refers  to  “ Edward 
Grymyston,  nobleman,  esquire,  lord  of  Helsterwyk  (=  Elsternwick  in  Holderness),  and  Alice 
his  wife,  noblewoman,”  but  nothing  is  said  of  her  parentage.  The  above  facts  were 
obtained  for  me  by  Mr.  H.  Clifford  Smith,  of  the  V.  & A.  Museum,  from  his  colleague 
Mr.  A.  van  de  Put,  who  kindly  searched  all  available  authorities. 


THE  GOLDSMITH’S  SHOP 


109 


in  great  detail,  especially  about  the  brow  ; the  expression  is  sly. 
The  man  might  be  on  the  verge  of  smiling,  but  remains  mightily 
observant.  The  body  is  enclosed  in  the  robe  of  his  order,  massively 
blocked  out  as  a good  designer  of  wood-sculpture  would  have 
designed  it.  The  handling  of  the  light  is  admirable.  Christus 
should  have  confined  his  attention  to  portraiture.  The  world 
of  dreams  was  no  place  for  him.  He  did  not  dwell  with  imagined 
saints.  Like  most  of  the  people  of  his  day,  he  was  truly  interested 
only  in  the  world  and  the  men  of  the  day.  In  painting  them  he 
did  not  waste  his  time. 

An  entertaining  picture  of  the  interior  of  a goldsmith’s  shop, 
painted  in  the  year  1449,  shows  an  advance  in  the  same  direction 
toward  summary  treatment.  It  was  long  well  known  in  the 
Oppenheim  Collection  at  Cologne  and  now  belongs  to  Mr.  Philip 
Lehmann,  of  New  York,  It  is  usually  said  to  represent  an  incident 
in  the  legend  of  St.  Eloy  and  St.  Godeberta,  and  is  reported  to 
have  belonged  to  the  Corporation  of  Goldsmiths  at  Antwerp. 
It  may,  however,  be  doubted  whether  the  halo  round  the  gold- 
smith’s head  is  original.  All  three  heads  are  obviously  portraits  ; 
the  bride  and  bridegroom,  who  have  come  to  buy  a wedding-ring, 
doubtless  primarily  intended  that  such  they  should  be.  Whether 
they  put  themselves  into  the  position  of  legendary  personages 
matters  nothing  to  us,  for  it  is  a mid-fifteenth  century  shop  in 
Bruges  that  we  are  shown,  not  the  seventh  century  studio  of 
Dagobert’s  treasurer  and  artist.  The  goldsmith  is  extraordinarily 
like  Dunois,  Bastard  of  Orleans  (born  1402),  as  depicted  in  advanced 
years  in  a portrait  attributed  to  Fouquet,  but  the  resemblance  is 
probably  accidental.  In  any  case,  the  three  portraits  are  well 
enough,  though  they  lack  animation,  and  are  a little  like  coloured 
wooden  figures.  What  makes  the  goldsmith’s  picture  popular 
is  the  shop  and  the  goods  that  are  for  sale.  Mr.  H.  Clifford  Smith, 
in  a delightful  monograph,*  in  which  he  has  studied  and  explained 
every  detail,  tells  us  that  the  bridegroom  wears  the  badge  of  the 
Dukes  of  Guelders.  Wherever  we  see  a convex  mirror  we  naturally 
suspect  imitation  of  Van  Eyck’s  Arnolfini  picture.  This  is  to  go 
too  far.  But  when  that  mirror  reflects  two  approaching  persons, 

* The  Goldsmith  and  the  Young  Couple  . . . by  Petrus  Christus.  London,  privately 
printed,  1915  ; and  Burlington  Magazine,  September  1914. 

9 


110 


PETER  CHRISTUS 


as  here  and  in  Campin’s  Werl  wings,  the  dependenee  becomes 
probable,  especially  in  this  case  where  a marrying  couple  are  in 
question.  As  for  the  scales,  weights,  coins,  and  the  stock-in-trade, 
Mr.  Clifford  Smith  explains  and  identifies  them  all,  pointing  out 
in  particular  the  “ tongue-stones  ” or  fossilized  sharks’  teeth 
similar  to  those  yielded  by  the  black  crag  at  Boom,  near  Antwerp. 
The  ewers,  cups,  a crystal  reliquary,  the  rings,  brooches,  bag,  and 
all  the  rest,  quicken  the  envy  of  a modern  collector,  which  is 
equivalent  to  saying  that  they  are  well  rendered. 

Also  from  1449  dates  a half-length  Madonna  nursing  the 
Child,  now  in  the  collection  of  Count  Matuschka-Greiffenau, 
Schloss  Vollrads,  near  Wiesbaden,  which  some  years  ago  was 
discovered  beneath  a Late  Renaissance  Crucifixion  painted  over 
Christus’  composition. ‘ 

The  last  known  picture  by  our  artist  is  a Mourning  over  the 
Body  of  Christ,  in  the  Brussels  Gallery,  to  be  dated  in  or  after  the 
year  1460,  as  Hulin  proved  from  the  shaven  heads.  An  earlier 
version  of  the  same  subject  is  in  the  New  York  Museum,  but  that 
in  the  Schloss  Collection  in  Paris  appears  to  be  either  a copy  of  a 
lost  original  or  an  imitation  by  some  follower.  In  the  Brussels 
picture  there  are  further  traces  of  the  influence  of  Campin  and  even 
of  Roger.  The  landscape  has  lost  the  old  charm  and  the  rocks 
are  beginning  to  crack  up.  The  composition  is  scattered,  though 
better  than  in  the  earlier  Crucifixion,  the  best  indeed  that  Christus, 
working  hard,  could  devise.  He  also  tried  to  be  pathetic,  and  he 
painted  all  the  heads  with  a good  deal  of  care  ; but  the  work,  as 
a whole,  leaves  us  cold  and  enables  us  to  part  from  the  artist  without 
regret.  A French  picture  of  the  same  subject  in  the  Louvre, 
painted  toward  the  end  of  the  century,  may  owe  something  to  the 
Brussels  panel.  But  enough  of  Christus  ! If  the  reader  is  not 
bored  with  him,  the  writer  is,  and  joyfully  turns  to  more  interesting 
artists. 

1 See  reproduetion  in  the  Cicerone,  1910,  plate  facing  p.  224.  The  signature  and 
date  are  on  the  frame,  as  was  the  case  with  the  portrait  of  Grimston’s  wife. 


CHAPTER  X 


ROBERT  CAMPIN  AND  JACQUES  DARET 

Robert  Campin  ' was  an  important  artist  of  the  same  generation 
as  John  van  Eyck.  He  must  have  been  born  about  1378,  seeing 
that  he  was  28  years  old  when  he  settled  in  Tournay  about  1406. 
Obviously,  therefore,  he  was  a formed  artist  before  that  date. 
Where  did  he  come  from  ? Where  did  he  get  his  education  ? 
Out  of  what  school  did  he  arise  ? We  have  no  picture  by  him 
of  date  early  enough  to  aid  us  in  answering  these  questions.  The 
Tournay  accounts  contain  numerous  references  to  work  done  by 
him,  but  not  to  pictures.  He  had  to  paint  statues,  coats-of-arms, 
banners,  and,  once,  a considerable  piece  of  wall-decoration  with 
equestrian  figures  of  the  Kings  of  France  and  Aragon.  He  would 
likewise  have  been  called  upon  to  design  the  sculptures  he  after- 
wards had  to  decorate,  for  such  was  the  custom  at  Tournay. 
But  from  all  the  records  we  only  learn  that  Campin  prospered. 
Walloon  historians  not  unnaturally  wish  to  believe  that  so  early 
and  considerable  an  artist  was  of  French-speaking  origin.  They 
note  that  the  name  Campin  is  not  uncommon  in  Hainault,  notably 
at  Valenciennes,  where  it  occurs  frequently  at  this  period  ; and 
they  further,  and  with  obvious  force,  point  out  that  on  a critical 
occasion  our  Robert  received  potent  protection  from  the  Duchess  of 
Hainault,  when  he  had  been  condemned  to  a year’s  exile  because 
of  his  dissolute  life.  Nevertheless,  it  is  tempting  to  look  else- 
where for  his  origin.  His  very  name  suggests  the  Limbourg 
Campine  in  the  neighbourhood  of  Maastricht,  whence  came  the 
Van  Eycks  and  the  de  Limbourgs  and  other  famous  artists  of 
this  generation.  At  Maastricht  was  an  important  school  of  art  of 
ancient  standing  to  which  all  of  these  men  were  debtors.  Further, 

^ See  M.  Houtart,  Jacques  Daret,  a pamphlet  published  (without  date)  by  Casterman, 
at  Tournay. 


Ill 


112 


ROBERT  CAMPIN 


when  Robert  Campin  settled  at  Tournay  he  brought  with  him 
his  wife,  Isabella  of  Stoekhem,  and  Stockhem  is  “ a village  on  the 
left  bank  of  the  Maas  within  a short  distance  of  Maaseyck.”  Thus 
persons  of  Flemish  prejudices  have  likewise  a case  : adhuc  sub 
judice  Us  est. 

There  is  a good  deal  of  fifteenth  century  Tournay  sculpture 
existing,  chiefly  in  the  form  of  mural  memorial  reliefs,  with  man 
and  wife  kneeling  before  the  Virgin,  and  the  like  subjects.  Little 
in  any  of  them  known  to  me  recalls  the  design  or  the  style  of  Campin. 
He  cannot  have  formed  his  style  at  Tournay.  Unless  he  had 
come  in  contact  with  the  Van  Eycks,  how  did  he  learn  to  employ 
their  method  of  laying  on  colour  ? By  1430  or  1440,  no  doubt, 
the  process  had  become  more  or  less  generally  diffused  in  Flanders 
and  thereabouts,  but  Campin  was  at  the  top  of  his  productivity 
then  and  soon  about  to  go  out  of  business.  We  are  almost 
driven  to  conclude,  with  Hulin,  that  Campin  must  have  worked 
under  the  Van  Eycks  when  they  were  in  the  service  of  William 
of  Bavaria.  In  the  Prado  at  Madrid  is  a well-known  picture 
containing,  framed  by  incomplete  architecture,  the  Marriage 
of  the  Virgin  and  the  legendary  incident  preceding  it.  The  temple 
scene  is  under  an  open-sided  dome  supported  on  decorated  columns, 
two  of  which  Mr.  Weale  assured  us  resemble  two  in  the  Cathedral 
of  Tournay.  He  likewise  states  that  the  sections  of  certain  mould- 
ings, which  the  artist  carefully  displays,  prove  that  the  picture 
cannot  be  later  in  date  than  1425.  It  is  thus  contemporary  with 
Hubert  van  Eyck’s  work  on  the  Adoration  of  the  Lamb,  and, 
probably,  also  with  the  original  of  the  Fountain  of  Living  Water, 
likewise  at  Madrid.  Analogies  with  the  latter  picture  are  evideni, 
especially  among  the  discomfited  Jews.  There  is  in  both  the 
same  trick  of  people  turning  their  back,  similar  awkward  gestures, 
and  so  forth.  Simultaneity  and  origin  in  a common  artistic 
medium  might  account  for  such  resemblances,  but  not  easily. 
Campin  is  revealed  by  this  picture  as  a vigorous  awkward  artist, 
with  considerable  capacity  for  narration,  a liking  for  the  bizarre, 
an  interest  in  peculiar  types  of  people  and  agitated  expressions, 
a relative  indifference  to  formal  beauty  even  in  women,  an 
eagerness  to  crowd  folk  together  and  make  them  all  busy  about 
one  another — aplenty  of  action  and  reaction  of  character,  and  a 


THE  INFLUENCE  OF  DIJON 


113 


choice  of  good,  rich  colours,  brightly  mosaic’d  together.  The 
most  attractive  figure  is  that  of  a woman  with  turbaned  head- 
dress, who  turns  her  back.  Her  hair  is  elaborately  arranged, 
and  she  wears  a cloak  with  jewelled  borders.  Such  a figure  is 
characteristic  of  our  artist. 

But  Dr.  Winkler  has  pointed  out  another  possible  origin  for 
some,  at  least,  of  the  elements  of  Campin’s  style.  If  he  derived 
a factor  of  his  art  from  Hubert  or  the  Maastricht  School,  there 
are  other  factors  in  it  not  thence  derived.  These,  according 
to  Dr.  Winkler,  were  of  Burgundian  origin.  To  talk  of  a Bur- 
gundian school  of  art  in  the  days  of  Duke  Philip  the  Hardy,  or  his 
son  John,  is  premature.  There  were  many  artists  in  the  employ 
of  the  Duke,  but  by  no  means  all  of  them  worked  at  Dijon. 
Broederlam,  for  instance,  had  his  studio  at  Ypres.  Still,  the 
building  and  decoration  of  Champmol  Abbey  brought  a number 
of  important  artists  together,  and  they  must  have  reacted  upon 
one  another,  and,  as  we  can  see,  did  so  react.  Panel-pictures 
produced  in  that  medium  were  not  numerous,  but  there  were 
some,  and  of  them  a few  survive.  They  may  be  attributed  to 
the  first  quarter  of  the  fifteenth  century.  The  Martyrdom  of 
St.  Denis  altar-piece,  the  roundel  of  the  Pieta,  and  another  small 
Pieta  (all  three  in  the  Louvre),  another  Pieta  at  Troyes,  diptychs 
in  the  Morgan  Collection  and  the  Bargello,  and  triptychs  in  the 
Mayer  van  den  Bergh  (Antwerp)  and  the  Berlin  Museums  exemplify 
the  kind  of  paintings  to  which  we  refer.  The  first  two  of  the 
above  and  the  Troyes  Pieta  were  probably  painted  at  Dijon. 
The  St.  Denis  altar-piece  in  the  Louvre  may  be  chosen  as  repre- 
sentative for  present  purposes.  Little  doubt  is  there  but  that  it 
came  from  Champmol  Abbey.  It  may  well  have  been  the  picture 
which  Henri  Bellechose  of  Brabant  was  ordered  to  paint  for  Duke 
Jean  Sans  Peur,  and  was  paid  for  in  the  year  1416.  That,  however, 
was  ten  years  after  Campin  was  settled  at  the  head  of  a painter’s 
business  at  Tournay.  Moreover,  we  may  as  justifiably  put  the 
picture  forward  as  an  example  of  Brabant  as  of  Dijon  work.  It 
might  even  be  argued  that  resemblances  in  it  to  what  Campin 
painted  may  have  been  derived  from  him,  and  that  Bellechose  of 
Brabant  may  have  studied  the  earlier  work  of  Campin  of  Tournay. 
Resemblances  of  style  are,  in  fact,  discoverable,  as  Winkler  explains, 


114 


ROBERT  CAMPIN 


line  by  line  and  detail  by  detail — all  obvious,  however,  by  com- 
parison of  photographs,  without  need  of  words.  The  Louvre  picture 
is  ugly  enough  in  its  present  condition,  and  probably  always 
was,  but  it  is  forceful.  Anyone  can  see  that  this  is  art  with  a 
future,  not  decadent  like  the  work  of  the  late  fourteenth  century 
miniaturists.  It  possesses  in  common  with  the  Madrid  Marriage 
of  the  Virgin  the  force  and  some  of  the  ugliness.  If  we  take  the 
St.  Denis  as  example  of  what  Brabant  or  Dijon,  if  you  please, 
could  produce  in  the  way  of  pictures  about  1415,  then  Campin’s 
picture,  to  my  thinking,  shows  what  resulted  from  crossing  that 
style  with  the  style  of  Hubert  van  Eyck,  and  expressing  it,  not 
in  the  old  method  of  tempera,  but  in  the  new  method  of  laying 
on  colours,  which  Hubert  had  invented. 

It  is  a far  cry  from  the  style  of  Campin,  as  revealed  in  any 
of  his  known  pictures,  to  that  of  contemporary  Italian  art ; yet 
a faint  echo  of  Italy  did  somehow  reach  the  Tournay  studio  at 
one  moment  of  his  career,  and  he  was  destined  to  pass  it  on  to  an 
ever-widening  circuit  of  imitators.  We  find  it  in  a much-copied 
picture  of  the  Virgin,  who  stands  in  the  apse  of  a church  with  a 
harp-playing  angel  on  one  side  of  her  and  a lute-playing  angel 
on  the  other.  Incidentally,  we  may  mention  that  the  white-robed 
Virgin  is  often  characteristic  of  Madonna  pictures  painted  for 
Spain,  and  that  many,  perhaps  most,  of  the  examples  of  Campin’s 
Madonna  have  come  out  of  Spain  in  recent  years.  It  is  not  necessary 
to  conclude  that  Campin  went  to  Spain.  There  was  much  picture- 
traffic  between  Spain  and  the  Netherlands  in  the  fifteenth  century. 
The  Madrid  Marriage  of  the  Virgin,  for  instance,  was  doubtless 
made  for  a Spanish  patron,  seeing  that  on  the  back  of  it  are  two 
painted  imitations  in  stone-colour  of  sculptured  figures  in  niches  ; 
one  of  them  the  Spanish  St.  Jago  of  Compostella,  the  other 
St.  Clara,  who  was  scarcely  less  popular  in  Spain. 

It  is  not,  however,  with  Campin’s  white  Virgin  that  we  are  now 
concerned,  but  with  the  two  angels,  the  harpist  and  lutist. 
Whence  did  they  come  flying  over  to  Tournay  ? The  answer  is, 
from  Italy.  The  enthroned  Virgin  with  angels  about  her  was  a 
Byzantine  type  taken  up  in  Italy  at  an  early  date,  as  the  famous 
Rucellai  Madonna  in  Florence  proves.  It  was  not,  however,  until 
the  end  of  the  fourteenth  century,  I believe,  that  Italian  angels 


CONVENTIONAL  ANGELS 


115 


began  to  learn  music.  Orchestras  of  angels  become  common  in 
Florence  and  all  over  Italy  in  the  fifteenth  century,  but  it  is  not 
the  orchestras  that  we  have  to  deal  with,  only  this  pair — the  harpist 
and  lutist  on  either  hand  of  a Virgin  and  Child.  Once  you  begin 
to  look  for  them  you  find  them  cropping  up  all  over  Europe  in 
the  fifteenth  century  : a pair  readily  recognizable  and  always 

obviously  descending  by  a well-marked  tradition.  It  was  Campin 
who  gave  them  vogue  in  North  Europe,  but  he  did  not  invent  them. 
Sometimes  the  lute  is  replaced  by  a viol — a trifling  change — 
but  with  that  exception  the  pair  travel  together  from  studio  to 
studio  and  from  country  to  country. 

By  whom  they  were  first  invented  I cannot  say,  not  having 
hunted  through  all  the  galleries  and  churches  of  Europe,  but  the 
first  appearance  I am  able  to  record  is  in  an  altar-piece  by  Agnolo 
Gaddi  (ob.  1396).'  They  also  kneel  on  one  knee  on  either  side  of 
a signed  Madonna  by  Taddeo  di  Bartolo,  dated  1400,  which  is  in 
the  church  of  St.  Caterina  della  Notte  at  Siena  ; and  they  appear 
seated  in  a retable  by  the  same  artist,  dated  1403.  I find  them 
again  in  two  other  pictures  in  the  Perugia  gallery,  both  painted 
by  the  Umbrian  Giovanni  Boccati  da  Camerino  (one  dated  1447), 
as  well  as  in  a Madonna  which  was  in  the  Nevin  sale  (1907,  No.  235), 
and  in  a painting  in  the  Johnson  Collection  at  Philadelphia  attri- 
buted by  Berenson  to  Francesco  di  Gentile  da  Fabriano.  It  would 
be  easy  to  multiply  Sienese  and  Umbrian  examples,  but  let  these 
suffice. 

By  some  agency — a travelling  manuscript  illuminator  or  what 
you  please  to  guess — these  angels  came  over  the  Alps  and  down 
the  Rhine,  stopping  at  Mayence  on  the  way,  where  a nameless 
but  attractive  painter,  about  the  year  1420,  introduced  them  into 
the  Ortenberger  altar-piece  now  in  Darmstadt  Museum.  Thence 
they  travelled  on  to  Tournay,  and  were  painted  by  Campin,  stand- 
ing on  either  hand  of  the  Madonna  in  question.  Two  examples  of 
this  Madonna  were  at  one  time  simultaneously  on  view  in  London  ; 
some  critics  thought  one  was  the  original  and  some  thought  the 
other.  They  are  now  in  the  National  Gallery  and  the  Metropolitan 
Museum  in  New  York  ; it  is  quite  likely  that  both  eame  from 
Campin’s  shop.  The  design  must  have  attained  immediate  success, 

' Reinach’s  Repertoire,  i,  191. 


116 


ROBERT  C AMPIN 


for  no  less  than  twelve  ancient  repetitions  of  it  are  known,  and 
others  appear  to  have  passed  through  sale-rooms  and  vanished.* 
It  is  thus  certain  that  Campin’s  picture  had  great  vogue  in  its 
day  and  is  sure  to  have  attracted  the  attention  of  contemporary 
painters.  It  is  the  first  instance  of  that  copying  and  recopying 
of  a popular  type  which  became  so  frequent  and  is  so  wearisome 
in  the  work  of  commonplace  Netherlands  guild-painters  of  the 
last  third  of  the  fifteenth  and  early  years  of  the  sixteenth  centuries. 

It  is  worth  note  in  passing  that  the  Child  in  Campin’s  picture 
is  very  like  Hubert  van  Eyck’s  babies,  and  very  unlike  the  ordinary 
run  of  John’s,  while  the  sentiment  with  which  the  Virgin  clasps 
it  is  thoroughly  Hubertesque  ; perhaps  even  the  idea  of  the  Virgin 
standing  within  a church  may  have  been  derived  from  the  picture 
we  discussed  above.  Campin’s  central  group  in  its  turn  was  imitated 
more  than  once,  but  for  the  Virgin  and  Child  alone  it  was  another 
picture  by  him — a roundel— that  had  greatest  vogue,  and  was 
copied  even  oftener  than  the  work  we  are  diseussing.^ 

Memling  appears  to  have  been  the  next  Netherlander  to  bring 
the  angel  pair  into  his  pictures.  We  find  them  on  either  side  of 
the  Virgin  in  the  beautiful  Uffizi  panel.  She  of  the  viol  has  stopped 
playing  to  offer  an  apple  to  the  Child,  but  the  harpist  twangs 
away.  In  another  painting  of  similar  character  belonging  to 
the  Duke  of  Westminster,  an  admirable  work  by  a follower  in 
the  next  generation,  the  viol  angel  is  walking  off  in  the  back- 
ground— sent  on  an  errand,  perhaps,  or  merely  bored.  Both  these 
pictures  contain  Italian  elements  in  the  architecture  and  accessories, 
so  that  it  may  be  claimed  that  the  angels  also  came  over  from 
Italy  direct  and  not  by  way  of  Tournay.  This,  however,  cannot 
be  said  of  those  in  Gerard  David’s  triptych  in  the  Louvre,  which 
are  obviously  Campin’s,  and  so  are  those  in  the  pretty  Madonna 
in  the  Johnson  Collection  at  Philadelphia.  Another  tiny  pair 
are  carved  as  arm-bosses  on  the  throne  in  the  same  artist’s  Stem 
of  Jesse  at  Dijon.  These  are  by  no  means  the  only  occasions 

* Winkler  mentions  thirteen,  but  his  Robinson  and  New  York  examples  are  the 
same  picture. 

2 The  best  example  of  the  roundel  is  in  the  Johnson  Collection  at  Philadelphia.  The 
number  of  copies  is  legion.  Curiously  enough,  it  sometimes  appears  as  pendant  to  another 
roundel  with  music-making  angels. 


SYSTEMATIC  BORROWING 


117 


when  David  took  a hint  from  Campin.  Other  followers  of  Memling 
repeated  the  theft,  but  it  would  be  tedious  to  make  a mere  list 
of  their  pictures.  Miniaturists  also  painted  them  in  Flemish 
manuscripts.^ 

An  indifferent  early  Netherlands  engraver,  known  as  the 
“ Master  of  the  Death  of  Mary  ” (not  to  be  confused  with  the 
painter  so  designated),  borrowed  this  angel-pair  and,  launching 
them  aloft,  engraved  them  hovering  over  the  Virgin’s  head.  Other 
Flemish  engravings  of  the  type  may  exist.  The  Rhenish  en- 
graver “ E.  S.”  likewise  employed  them  (Lehrs,  No.  83),  and 
it  is  still  more  remarkable  to  come  across  them  in  a careful 
drawing  by  the  boy  Albert  Diirer,  done  in  the  year  1485,  at  least 
twelve  months  before  he  entered  as  apprentice  into  Wolgemut’s 
studio.  This  drawing  may  have  been  copied  from  some  lost  print. 
Without  lingering  to  search  through  all  the  galleries  of  German 
pictures,  it  will  suffice  to  note  that  by  1500  the  two  angels  were 
at  home  in  Styria,  where  a local  painter  depicted  them,  each 
standing  on  a pedestal,  in  a picture  now  in  the  Liechtenstein 
Collection. 

As  these  angels  had  flown  over  the  Alps  to  the  Netherlands, 
so  presently  they  took  their  course  thence  over  the  Pyrenees 
to  Spain.  This  was  to  be  expected,  seeing  that  Campm’s  type 
was  so  numerously  represented  there.  They  are  found  in  one  of 
a series  of  paintings  (wrongly  ascribed  to  David)  in  the  Archbishop’s 
Palace  at  Evora,  which  was  reproduced  by  the  Arundel  Club. 
Their  latest  appearance,  as  far  as  I can  discover,  is  in  a picture 
attributed  to  Vicente  Juan  de  Juanes,  which  is  or  was  in  the  King 
of  Roumania’s  collection  at  Bucharest. 

If  the  reader  has  not  skipped  these  dull  paragraphs,  he  will 
have  derived  from  them  an  idea  of  how  Flemish  painters,  whether 
contemporaries  or  of  succeeding  generations,  borrowed  frankly 
from  one  another  and  repeated  popular  features.  Sometimes 
they  copied  with  exact  fidelity  ; more  often  they  copied  freely, 
but  they  had  no  hesitation  in  taking  good  things  wherever  they 
found  them,  and  this  was  true  of  the  best  as  of  the  worst. 

One  of  the  most  famous  of  Campin’s  pictures  is  the  Inghel- 

^ For  example,  in  a mid-fifteenth  century  Book  of  Hours  in  the  Jeffery  Whitehead 
Collection,  once  exhibited  at  the  Burlington  Fine  Arts  Club. 


118 


ROBERT  CAMPIN 


brechts  Annunciation  triptych,  belonging  to  the  Merode  family 
in  Brussels.  It  owes  some  of  its  reputation  to  the  fact  that  shortly 
after  it  had  been  identified  as  the  work  of  our  artist,  when  he  was 
just  being  disentangled  from  Roger  van  der  Weyden,  to  whom 
his  pictures  were  previously  assigned,  the  owners  shut  the  picture 
up,  and  for  a long  series  of  years  allowed  nobody  to  see  it ! Not 
till  the  Golden  Fleece  Exhibition  at  Bruges  in  1907  did  it  again 
emerge  into  publicity  and  justify  its  fame.  It  is  undoubtedly 
a most  interesting  work,  for  all  its  bad  perspective  and  rudimentary 
figure-drawing.  Such  scientific  details,  as  a matter  of  fact,  are 
neither  here  nor  there  with  a work  of  art,  which  may  be  good 
without  them  or  bad  though  possessing  them  all  in  strict 
regularity.  The  whole  picture  is  in  fact  pleasant  to  look  upon. 
It  charms  the  eye.  It  is  a fine  thing  to  see  and  stirs  the  cockles 
of  delight.  It  also  contains  many  entertaining  details — such  a 
nice  pot  on  such  a nice  table,  and  such  a bench  ! What  would 
we  not  give  could  we  find  them  for  sale  in  an  old  furniture  shop  ? 
Thus  it  is  with  all  the  details  of  the  room.  They  are  more 
prominent  here,  and  there  seem  to  be  more  of  them,  than  in  Van 
Eyck’s  Arnolfini.  That  is  because  Van  Eyck  was  more  entertained 
by  the  people  and  the  light,  Campin  by  the  bric-a-brac.  He 
also  could  paint  portraits  well  enough,  as  the  left  wing  of  the 
triptych  proves,  but  far  more  entertaining  than  the  donors  to 
him  and  to  us  is  St.  Joseph  on  the  other  wing.  You  may,  indeed 
must,  call  him  St.  Joseph,  but  he  is,  in  fact,  a very  respectable 
and  comfortably  dressed  master-carpenter  of  Tournay  about 
1425-30.  He  has  finished  making,  of  all  things  in  the  world, 
a mouse-trap  ! and  he  has  put  another  out  on  the  flap-table 
outside  his  window  to  attract  customers.  Why  should  St.  Joseph 
make  mouse-traps  ? Colin  de  Coter  gave  him  the  same  job  in 
the  background  of  his  picture  of  St.  Luke  painting  the  Virgin,  but 
Colin  was  a bold  plagiarist  of  Campin.  What  a nice  little  work- 
shop it  is  ! — just  as  nice  m its  way  as  the  Virgin’s  chamber,  and 
for  us  especially  attractive  because  of  the  view  out  of  the  window. 
It  must  always  have  been  a pleasant  view.  Campin  evidently 
liked  it,  for  he  painted  it  again  with  unimportant  changes  in 
other  pictures.  Presumably  it  was  a view  of  some  square  in 
Tournay  with  a side-street  leading  out  of  it  toward  a big  church. 


PLATE  IV 


1.  THE  DUKE’S  BANQUET.  CHANTILLY 
HOURS  (fo!.  1 V.).— p.  77. 


2.  J.  VAN  EYCK.  PORTRAIT.  PHILADELPHIA, 
p.  67. 


3.  R.  CAMPIN’.  WING  OF 
INGHELBRECMTS  ALTAR. 

p.  118. 


4.  R.  CA:\IPIN.  THE  VIRGIN  OF  SALAIUANCA. 
NEW  A'ORK. — p.  115. 


[To  lace  paje 


THE  MERODE  ANNUNCIATION 


119 


but  I can  find  nothing  in  that  city  that  agrees  with  it.  To  us, 
however,  it  is  a view,  not  so  much  of  this  or  that  particular  place, 
but  straight  into  the  fifteenth  century  ! There  we  have  the  real 
thing — the  houses,  the  shops,  the  people,  the  churches,  just  as 
they  used  to  look,  before  anyone  had  talked  of  town-planning, 
all  so  charmingly  set  out,  so  prettily  designed,  so  well  built,  and 
in  such  admirable  common  proportions  and  harmonious  style. 
Never  since  those  days  has  any  city  of  Europe  presented  a like 
unity  of  style  and  harmony  of  good  effect.  But  we  cannot  linger 
over  every  picture  of  our  master.  The  Salting  Virgin  in  the 
National  Gallery  must  pass  with  a mere  mention,  and  as  for  lost 
pictures  of  which  only  copies  remain — the  Tomyris  and  the  Jael, 
for  instance — well ! they  also  have  now  been  mentioned,  and  that 
shall  suffice.  In  the  J.  G.  Johnson  Collection  is  a panel  with 
two  large-scale  heads  of  Christ  and  the  Virgin.  The  former  may 
owe  something  to  the  Head  by  John  van  Eyck,  which  is  only  known 
to  us  by  copies.  This  is  the  earliest  example  of  such  a pair.  Later 
Netherlands  artists  frequently  repeated  this  type  either  on  one 
or  on  two  separate  panels.  The  latest  well-known  example  is 
the  picture  by  Quentin  Massys  at  Antwerp,  whereof  there  is  a 
school  replica  in  the  National  Gallery.  Even  in  that,  the  affiliation 
to  Campin’s  original  remains  evident. 

In  1427,  which  may  be  about  the  time  we  have  reached  in 
Campin’s  activities,  a notable  change  took  place  in  his  affairs. 
He  received  two  important  pupils  : on  March  5 Rogelet  de  la 
Pasture,  whom  we  generally  and  unfortunately  call  Roger  van 
der  Weyden,  and  on  April  12  Jacquelotte  (or  Jacques)  Daret. 
So  the  Tournay  registers  tell  us,  and  it  seems  straightforward 
enough  until  we  note  that  when  Roger  began  his  apprenticeship 
he  was  already  27  years  of  age.  It  is  still  more  surprising  to 
read  that,  on  the  17th  of  November  of  the  previous  year,  the  city 
of  Tournay  presented  eight  measures  of  wine  to  “ Maistre  Rogier 
de  la  Pasture.”  We  know  what  such  presents  of  wine  imply. 
We  have  already  cited  Durer’s  account  of  his  entertainment 
by  the  Painters’  Guild  of  Antwerp,  and  how  “ the  Syndic. of  Antwerp 
came,  with  two  servants,  and  presented  me  with  four  measures 
of  wine  in  the  name  of  the  Town  Councillors  of  Antwerp,  and 
they  had  bidden  him  to  say  that  they  wished  thereby  to  show  their 


120 


ROBERT  CAMPIN 


respect  for  me  and  to  assure  me  of  their  good-will.”  Again, 
on  October  18,  1427,  the  town  of  Tournay  presented  four  measures 
of  wine  to  the  painter  John  (almost  surely  Van  Eyck),  who  was 
attending  the  banquet  of  the  Tournay  Guild.  If  Roger  was  Master 
Roger  in  1426,  how  did  he  come  to  be  apprentice  Roger  in  1427  ? 
Some  reply  that  apprentice  Roger  must  have  been  a different  person, 
and  that  only  the  Master  Roger  of  1426  was  the  famous  Roger 
van  der  Weyden.  But  Roger  van  der  Weyden’s  numerous  well- 
known  pictures  prove  him  to  have  been  powerfully  influenced  by 
Campin — so  powerfully  that  he  must  have  been  his  pupil.  Suppose, 
then,  the  Master  Roger  of  1426  to  have  been  another  person.  He 
must  have  been  eminent  for  the  town  to  give  him  eight  measures 
of  wine  and  the  great  John  only  four.  Why,  then,  do  we  never 
hear  or  read  of  him  again  ? It  is  a puzzle  and  the  explanation 
is  what  you  please.  The  two  entries  probably  apply  to  the  same 
person.  The  copyist  may  have  blundered  about  the  dates.  The 
original  document  does  not  exist,  I believe. 

Roger,  then,  in  1427,  was  the  honoured  Master  of  some  craft, 
and  became  an  apprentice  in  painting  to  Campin.  Daret  also 
may  have  been  well  advanced  in  art,  for  almost  as  soon  as  he 
left  Campin  in  1432  he  received  a very  important  commission, 
not  likely  to  have  been  given  to  a young  untried  journeyman. 
We  may  therefore  conclude  that  these  young  artists  were  a 
valuable  addition  to  Campin’s  forces,  and  while  they  were  with 
him  he  probably  painted  two  great  triptychs  represented  now 
by  panels  in  the  Frankfurt  gallery — the  triptych  of  the  Descent 
from  the  Cross  and  the  triptych  said  to  have  been  in  the  Abbey 
of  Flemalle  or  that  of  Falin  near  Sedan.  To  the  same  period 
may  also  be  assigned  the  Madonna  at  Aix  in  Provence  and  the 
Nativity  at  Dijon. 

The  Descent  from  the  Cross  triptych  is  known  from  a copy  on 
a small  scale  in  Liverpool  Gallery,  which  came  from  the  Hospital 
of  St.  Julian  at  Bruges,  the  only  fragment  of  the  original  remaining 
being  the  upper  part  of  the  right  (or  sinister)  wing  at  Frankfurt. 
There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  wings  at  Liverpool  repeat  the 
originals,  but  was  the  central  panel  really  a Descent  from  the 
Cross  ? The  wings  appear  to  belong  to  a Crucifixion.  Now, 
in  Bruges  Cathedral  is  a Crucifixion  in  which  the  Thieves  are 


THE  FLEMALLE  PANELS 


121 


copied  from  those  on  the  Frankfurt  wings,  so  perhaps  the  original 
central  panel  had  a Christ  on  the  Cross. ^ It  is  not  a matter  of 
much  importance,  for  it  is  clear  that  the  central  panel  at  Liverpool 
depicting  the  Descent  is  copied  from  a picture  by  Campin,  and  it 
is  one  of  which  there  is  another  copy  known,*  and  by  which  Roger 
was  powerfully  influenced.  As  for  Campin’s  Flemalle  triptych, 
we  possess  only  the  wings,  with  their  life-size  figures  of  the  Virgin 
and  St.  Veronica  * on  the  front  and  the  Trinity  in  monochrome 
on  the  back  of  one  of  them.  The  subject  of  the  centre-piece 
is  unknown,  if  ever  there  was  a central  painting  at  all. 

The  design  of  Campin’s  Descent  from  the  Cross  is  preserved  in 
the  Liverpool  copy  ; its  quality  is  vouched  for  by  the  Frankfurt 
fragment.  It  must  have  been  a notable  work.  The  figures  were 
life-size  ; the  action  dramatic,  if  awkward.  There  were  splendid 
draperies  richly  coloured.  There  were  horrors  of  wounds  depicted 
with  blood-curdling  veracity.  How  the  whole  must  have  over- 
whelmed the  people  for  whom  it  was  painted  ! A gorgeous 

decorative  effect  was  aimed  at,  and  to  that  end  the  background 
was  of  richly  patterned  gold.  Campin  intended  it  to  be  as  dramatic 
as  possible,  and  he  had,  no  doubt,  plenty  of  opportunity  to  receive 
suggestions  from  mystery  plays  in  which  he  had  beheld  this  same 
scene  acted  in  the  market-place  of  Tournay  or  elsewhere.  Grant 
that  his  composition  lacks  rhythm  of  line,  that  the  figures  are 
awkwardly  grouped  ; there  is  yet  a certain  splendour  about  the 
thing  that  is  undeniable,  whilst  the  wings  reach  a height  of 
distinction  which  perhaps  might  be  cited  as  throwing  some  doubt 
upon  the  centre-piece.  That,  however,  we  must  remember  is  only 
visible  to  us  through  the  dim  medium  of  poor  copies. 

The  Flemalle  wings  speak  for  themselves  ; they  are  imposing 
not  merely  in  size  but  by  an  essential  dignity  which  belongs  to 

^ There  is  yet  another  copy  of  the  wing  Thieves  in  an  engraving  by  the  so-called 
“ Master  of  1466.”  In  that  they  are  combined  with  a copy  of  Roger  van  der  Weyden’s 
Deseent.  So  that  we  have  them  at  Liverpool  combined  with  a Descent  copied  from 
Campin,  at  Bruges  combined  with  a Crucifixion,  and  in  the  engraving  combined  with  a 
Deseent  by  Roger.  Perhaps  there  never  was  any  painted  centre-piece  at  all,  and  the 
wings  may  have  been  shutters  to  a group  of  sculpture.  There  is  no  known  centre-piece 
for  the  Flemalle  wings,  either. 

^ A miniature  among  those  added  at  Bruges  to  the  Hours  of  Turin  about  1445-50. 

® A beautiful  drawing,  some  say  for,  others  after,  the  St.  Veronica  is  in  the  Fitzwilliam 
Musemn  at  Cambridge. 


122 


ROBERT  CAMPIN 


the  age  out  of  which  their  maker  arose.^  It  was  by  these  panels 
that  Campin  emerged  in  modern  days  from  a long  oblivion.  When 
attention  began  to  be  paid  to  such  matters,  it  was  recognized  that 
Roger  van  der  Weyden  could  not  have  painted  them  ; they  must 
be  the  work  of  some  other  artist,  who  was  provisionally  named 
“ the  Master  of  Flemalle.”  Other  pictures  were  from  time  to 
time  grouped  with  them,  till  finally  it  became  evident  that  the 
only  recorded  artist  whose  date  and  known  career  matched  this 
group  of  works  was  Robert  Campin.  Conservative  writers  still, 
however,  continue  to  call  him  by  the  non-committal  designation 
aforesaid. 

Turn  we  next  to  the  Madonna*  in  the  Gallery  at  Aix  in  Provence, 
where  she  sits  on  a solid  bench  floating  in  the  air.  Nothing  less 
accordant  with  the  idea  of  flotation  can  be  conceived,  but  for  all 
that  the  picture  pleases.  Other  artists  imitated  this  same  arrange- 
ment. There  is  an  echo  of  it  in  the  beautiful  diptych  of  Jeanne 
de  Bourbon  at  Chantilly  by  an  unidentified  master.  When  critics 
fail  to  place  a picture  they  generally  fall  foul  of  it  and  call  it 
second-rate,  as  has  happened  in  this  case.  But  the  Chantilly 
picture  is  not  second-rate  at  all ; it  is  one  of  the  most  delightful 
works  of  about  1460-5,  painted  probably  by  a Frenchman  who  was 
a follower  of  Campin,  had  seen  some  of  the  works  of  Roger,  and 
had  passed  through  the  same  artistic  medium  out  of  which 
emerged  both  Memling  and  the  painter  of  the  panels  of  the  shrine 
of  St.  Omer  Abbey,  who  is  often  identified  with  Simon  Marmion. 
From  the  Chantilly  picture,  in  turn,  the  Maitre  de  Moulins  took 
the  idea  and  the  pose  of  his  admirable  Virgin,  enthroned  in  the 
sky  among  angels,  the  altar-piece  of  Moulins  Cathedral,  which 
was  painted  in  the  last  year  or  two  of  the  century. 

Two  pictures  remain  to  us  and  a drawing  of  a third  which  belong 
to  Campin’s  last  period,  that  is  to  say,  after  Roger  and  Daret  had 
left  him.  They  are  the  wings  (at  Madrid)  of  an  altar-piece  painted 
for  Heinrich  von  Werl,  dated  1438,  and  a Crucifixion  in  the  Berlin 

1 A proof  of  their  early  date  is  the  existence  (noted  by  Hulin)  of  a copy  of  the  figure 
of  the  bad  Thief  in  a MS.  of  1430. 

2 Hulin  thinks  the  picture  was  painted  for  Eaucourt  Abbey  in  Artois  in  the  days  of 
Abbot  Pierre  I’Escuyer.  A copy  of  it  at  Douai  came  out  of  St.  Bertin’s  Abbey  at 
St.  Omer. 


THE  WERE  WINGS 


123 


Museum.  The  drawing  is  in  the  Louvre— a Virgin  seated  in  a room 
on  a beneh  between  saints  and  donors.  There  is  nothing  striking 
about  the  Werl  wings.  St.  Barbara  is  seated  in  a delightful 
room  on  the  usual  bench,  with  her  back  to  a bright  fire,  which 
does  not  smoke,  but  perhaps  that  is  because  the  window  is  open 
so  that  we  can  see  in  the  distance  workmen  building  her  tower. 
On  the  other  wing  the  donor  is  kneeling  with  a very  leggy 
John  Baptist  standing  behind  him.  For  quiet,  unadvertising 
excellence,  these  are,  perhaps,  Campin’s  best  paintings. 

Heinrich  von  Werl  was  a notable  Professor  at  Cologne 
University  who,  in  this  same  year,  1438,  was  present  at  the  Council 
at  Basle.  It  has  been  noted  that  painters  of  the  Upper  Rhine 
district  show  knowledge  of  Campin’s  style  and  were  influenced 
by  him.  That,  of  course,  may  have  been  because  some  of  them 
came  to  the  Netherlands  to  study,  but  it  is  also  possible  that 
Campin  himself  was  at  the  Council  when  he  painted  this  picture. 
The  weakest  part  of  it,  scientifically,  is  the  way  the  Virgin  sits 
on  the  bench,  but  it  is  almost  correct.  All  his  life  long  Campin 
had  trouble  with  sitting  people.  He  began  with  merely  dropping 
them  anyhow  on  the  floor  as  in  the  Merode  Annunciation,  or 
miraculously  supporting  them  in  front  of  the  bench,  as  in  the 
Salting  Madonna.  As  time  went  on,  he  managed  to  give  the  idea 
of  their  being  propped  up  on  an  invisible  stool  under  their  draperies,, 
as  in  the  Petrograd  Madonna  (who  was  thought  by  an  astoundingly 
dense  critic  to  be  about  to  smack  the  Child  lying  on  her  lap  !).. 
In  the  Aix  picture  the  Virgin  is  at  last  put  upon  her  bench,  though 
not  properly  seated  on  it — she  rather  sits  in  it,  as  though  the 
seat  were  hollowed,  and  there  are  traces  of  this  mistake  lingering 
even  in  the  Werl  St.  Barbara,  but  in  the  Paris  drawing  the  difficulty 
is  at  last  overcome.  I mention  these  unimportant  blunders  because 
they  have  helped  students  to  discover  the  chronological  order 
of  the  pictures,  and  thus  to  manifest  the  artist’s  development. 

The  portrait  of  Werl  on  the  wing-panel  is  a good  presentment 
of  the  man,  but  if  one  wants  to  know  what  Campin  could  do  in 
the  way  of  portrait-painting  one  must  turn  to  the  National  Gallery 
heads  of  a well-balanced,  reliable,  intelligent  husband,  and  his 
eminently  good,  conventional  little  wife — excellent,  well-to-do, 
soundly  dressed  burgher  folk,  the  like  of  whom  in  quantity  would 


124 


ROBERT  CAMPIN  AND  JACQUES  DARET 


make  a strong  nation.  A monk’s  portrait-bust  at  Berlin  shows 
the  best  Campin  could  make  of  a far  less  estimable  person,  a 
fat,  self-indulgent,  fussy,  anxious  kind  of  man,  with  all  sorts  of 
tendencies  to  contend  against  in  himself  and  no  appearance  of 
either  power  or  desire  to  resist  them.  Campin  gives  us  the  facts 
about  the  people  brutally,  not  delicately  like  John  van  Eyck. 
Thus  they  looked  to  the  bold  spectator.  He  does  not  trouble, 
has  not  the  gift,  to  penetrate  below  the  surface.  A comparison 
between  John’s  Canon  de  Pala  and  Campin’s  Monk  shows  better 
than  words  the  difference  of  quality  between  the  two  artists. 

It  is  known  that  Campin  lived,  or  was  said  to  have  lived,  “ a 
dissolute  life.”  It  may  have  been  so,  or  perhaps  he  was  merely 
mixed  up  m local  politics,  and  thus  described  in  the  kindly 
fashion  of  political  opponents.  He  is  long  dead  and  gone  to  another 
dissolution.  But  he  has  left  behind  him  pictures  which  folk 
have  found  it  pleasant  to  take  care  of  for  nearly  five  hundred 
years,  so  that  much  may  be  forgiven  to  him.  After  all,  our  output 
is  the  thing  that  concerns  those  that  follow  us,  and  Campin’s 
output  was  more  than  respectable.  Not  only  his  works  but 
his  influence  continued,  and  for  the  best  part  of  a century 
reminiscences  of  his  inventions  keep  appearing  and  reappearing 
in  pictures  painted  by  artists  who  never  saw  him  and  many  of  whom 
had  never,  perhaps,  heard  his  name.  Thus  it  comes  about  that 
lost  pictures  by  him  can  be  identified  by  copies  and  imitations  of 
later  date,  the  hunting-up  of  which  is  a pleasant  sport  for  specialists, 
but  would  only  weary  the  reader  for  whom  this  book  is  intended. 
For  him  enough  has  been  written  about  Campin  ; perhaps  too  much. 
He  died  in  the  year  1444. 

Before  dealing  at  length  with  that  most  important  artist, 
Campin’s  pupil,  Roger  van  der  Weyden,  it  will  be  best  to  finish 
with  his  fellow-pupil  and  contemporary,  Jacques  Daret.  Four 
panels  of  an  altar-piece  by  him  have  been  identified  in  recent  years. 
Two  are  in  America  and  two  in  the  Berlin  Museum.  Their  subjects 
are  the  Visitation,  the  Nativity,  the  Adoration  of  the  Magi,  and  the 
Presentation  in  the  Temple.  They  are  interesting  pictures,  but 
would  not  delay  us  long  were  it  only  with  the  pictures  that  we  had 
to  acquaint  ourselves.  The  most  interesting  fact  about  them, 
now  and  to  us,  is  that  they  were  proved  by  Professor  Hulin  to  be 


HULIN’S  DISCOVERY 


125 


by  this  said  Jacques  Daret,  and  the  proof  was  one  of  the  most 
conspicuous  and  brilliant  contributions  to  the  history  of  the 
early  Netherlands  painters  that  even  so  great  a student  and 
investigator  of  the  subject  has  rendered.  For  the  outlines  of 
the  life  of  Daret  had  been  revealed  with  unusual  completeness 
by  existing  archives  ; but  what  was  the  good  of  such  knowledge 
unless  we  could  point  to  pictures  by  him  ? It  was  known  that 
both  he  and  Roger  were  Campin’s  pupils.  Roger’s  work  was 
also  known.  It  was  guessed,  but  not  proved,  that  Campin  was  the 
painter  of  the  pictures  grouped  together  as  by  “ the  Master  of 
Flemalle.”  As  soon,  however,  as  the  four  panels  above  mentioned 
were  demonstrated  to  be  by  Daret,  it  became  at  onee  obvious  that 
Daret’s  master  must  have  been  “ the  Master  of  Flemalle.”  But 
records  asserted  that  Campin  was  Daret’s  master.  Campin, 
therefore,  was  the  same  as  “the  Master  of  Flemalle,”  and  painted 
the  pictures  attributed  to  him.  A corner-stone  of  the  highest 
structural  value  was  thus  firmly  fixed  for  the  great  historical 
gallery  of  Netherlands  art. 

Lesser  investigators  have  brought  to  light  this  or  the  other 
small  fact,  or  have  linked  together  this  or  the  other  particular 
picture  or  pictures  as  the  work  of  a single  hand.  The  addition, 
correction,  and  co-ordination  of  the  mass  of  such  observations 
have  slowly  built  together  the  rising  fabric  of  our  knowledge 
of  the  so  long  forgotten  or  negleeted  past ; but  every  now  and 
then  some  crucial  discovery  is  made,  usually  as  the  result  of 
patient  research  by  a man  of  exceptional  industry  and  ability, 
which  binds  together  and  vivifies  the  collective  observations  of 
minor  observers  and  enables  a whole  new  chapter  of  art-history 
to  be  written.  Sueh  a discovery  was  this  of  Professor  Hulin’s  ; 
we  cannot  afford  to  pass  it  over  lightly. 

The  man  of  action  looks  upon  the  student  as  a “ dry 
antiquarian  ” ; but  research  is  as  much  a sport  as  big  game 
shooting.  Just  as  the  whole  emotion  of  a battle  can  be  expressed 
in  music,  so  all  the  sport  of  a fox-hunt  may  be  experienced  in 
research.  The  little  discoveries  are,  each  in  its  turn,  so  many 
chases  ending  in  a “ kill  ” ; the  thrill  of  discovery  is  the  incentive 
to  this  sport.  It  is  only  physical  exertion  that  is  lacking,  but 
that  is  no  essential  part  of  sport ; it  is  a delightful  aceompaniment 
10 


126 


JACQUES  DARET 


of  most  sports,  not  of  all.  The  pursuit,  the  checks,  the  disap- 
pointments, the  excitement  when  the  scent  is  found  or  refound, 
the  quarry  in  sight,  overtaken,  captured — these  are  the  elements 
of  which  sport  is  built  up.  The  student  who  pursues  and  makes 
a discovery  enjoys  them  all ; but  his  pursuit  lasts  for  weeks, 
months,  it  may  be  years  ; and  the  quarry,  when  he  catches  and 
holds  it,  is  a thing  won  for  ever  and  added  to  the  stock  of  precious 
and  fruitful  knowledge.  Let  one  who  has  tried  several  forms  of 
sport  be  permitted  to  assert  that  the  sport  of  research  is  perhaps 
the  best  of  all.  I have  never  shot  a tiger  and  never  shall,  but  I 
can  well  imagine  the  feelings  of  a hunter  who  has  laid  low  the 
mighty  monarch  of  the  jungle.  Such  almost  exactly  are  the 
feelings  of  the  discoverer  who  at  length  finds  the  clue  that  explains 
the  course  of  history,  and  brings  order  into  the  chaotic  records 
and  remains  of  some  period  of  the  distant  past. 

The  important  panels  we  must  now  consider  formed  part  of  the 
painted  exterior  of  the  shutters  of  a sculptured  altar-piece,  made 
for  Jean  du  Clercq,  Abbot  of  St.  Vaast’s  at  Arras  (1428-62), 
one  of  the  councillors  of  Duke  Philip  the  Good  ; that  was  the 
clue  which  old  documents  yielded  to  Hulin’s  patient  research. 
They  proved  that  the  Abbot  was  immensely  proud  of  his  new 
altar-piece,  which  had  but  recently  been  set  up  before  the  visit 
of  an  important  papal  embassy  on  the  9th  of  July,  1435.  The 
legate  was  that  same  Cardinal  of  Santa  Croce,  Niccolo  Albergati, 
whose  portrait  (as  we  have  seen)  John  van  Eyck  painted  at  this 
time.  The  legate  was  conducted  by  the  Abbot  to  see  the  new 
altar-piece,  and  he  “took  pleasure  in  admiring  the  pictures.” 
So  much  for  the  question  of  date.  The  Abbot’s  accounts  preserve 
the  name  of  the  artist  who  painted  both  panels  and  sculptures — 
he  was  Jacques  Daret,  then  dwelling  at  Arras.  But  Daret,  in 
January  1433,  was  established  at  Tournay.  Hence  the  work  must 
have  been  begun  not  earlier  than  some  time  in  1433  and  finished 
before  July  1435. 

It  fortunately  happened  that  another  patient  student,  M. 
Maurice  Houtart,  working  through  the  archives  of  Tournay,  had 
already  discovered  and  published  in  the  above  cited  pamphlet  a 
number  of  important  facts  about  the  lives  of  Robert  Campin  and 
Jacques  Daret.  From  this  we  learn  that  the  Darets  were  an 


HIS  LIFE 


127 


established  family  of  craftsmen  settled  in  Tournay,  where  Jacques 
was  born  about  the  year  1403.  He  was  put  at  an  early  age  to  live 
and  work  in  the  household  of  Campin,  but  it  was  not  till  he  had 
so  worked  for  nine  years  that  he  began  a five  years’  formal  appren- 
ticeship, just  about  the  time  when  Master  Roger  entered  into 
a like  relation  with  Campin.  These  apprentices  must  have 
been  valuable  assistants  from  the  start — an  unusual  condition  of 
affairs,  one  would  suspect.  In  October  1432  Daret  became  a 
master-painter,  and  was  immediately  thereupon  appointed  provost 
of  the  guild  ! Next  year  he  went  off  to  Arras  to  work  for  the 
Abbot,  and  thenceforward,  whether  at  Arras,  Tournay,  or  else- 
where, he  was,  no  doubt,  well  employed.  It  is  specially  noteworthy 
that  in  1468  he  was  summoned  to  Bruges  and  there  worked  for 
eleven  weeks  at  the  head  of  a number  of  artists,  whose  business 
was  to  furnish  the  decorations  for  the  wedding  of  Charles  the 
Rash  and  Margaret  of  York — and  that  is  the  last  we  hear  about 
him.  Daniel  Daret,  his  half-brother  and  pupil,  succeeded  John 
van  Eyck  as  official  painter  of  Philip  the  Good,  but  nothing  is 
known  of  his  work. 

As  for  the  four  important  panels  themselves,  the  obvious 
fact  about  all  of  them  is  their  close  dependence  on  Campin.  It 
could  scarcely  have  been  otherwise.  After  thirteen  years  con- 
tinuous work  from  boyhood  under  one  master,  Daret  could  not 
have  failed  to  receive  a deep  impression  from  his  art.  It  would 
be  easy  to  cite  analogies  for  every  picture,  but  an  examination 
of  one — the  Visitation  (Berlin) — will  suffice.  It  is  the  panel 
which  contains  also  the  kneeling  portrait  of  the  donor.  The 
event  takes  place  in  the  open  air,  with  a landscape  stretching 
away,  a fine  moated  castle  in  the  background,  and  a road  winding 
off  in  another  direction  to  a secluded  village.  It  is  not  a bit  like 
one  of  the  Van  Eyck  landscapes,  but  it  is  well  enough.  The 
Abbot  is  not  a beauty,  but  the  artist  couldn’t  help  that,  so  he  hung 
his  coat-of-arms  on  a tree  close  by,  gave  him  a fine  crozier  to  hold, 
and  put  his  jewelled  mitre  on  the  ground  before  him — details  which 
the  old  chronicler  of  St.  Vaast  fortunately  set  down,  so  that  we  know 
this  must  be  the  picture  he  was  referring  to.  The  Virgin  and 
St.  Elizabeth  are  obviously  figures  of  Campin’s  invention.  Their 
types  are  common  in  his  pictures,  especially  the  Virgin’s,  with 


128 


JACQUES  DARET 


hair  turned  back  over  the  ear  and  waving  down  over  her  shoulders. 
One  would  guess  that  Campin  must  have  painted  a Visitation  which 
Daret  imitated  here,  as  did  Roger  also  about  the  same  time.  Daret 
is  a clumsier  painter  than  Roger — decorative,  loving  brilliant 
colours,  the  maker  of  things  cheerful  to  look  upon,  but  no  great 
artist  for  all  that,  and  in  the  long  run,  one  suspects,  better  employed 
in  decorations  for  court  functions  than  on  altar-pieces.  No 
other  pictures  by  him  are  known  for  certain,  but  this  one  suffices, 
not  primarily  for  its  beauty,  but  for  the  important  historical  clue 
that  Hulin  had  drawn  from  it.  Over  the  artist  himself  we  need 
not  linger.! 

! For  Professor  Hulin  on  Jacques  Daret,  see  The  Burlington  Magazine,  xv  (1909), 
pp.  202-8,  and  xix  (1911),  pp.  218-25. 


CHAPTER  XI 


ROGER  VAN  DER  WEYDEN 

It  is  a pity  that  the  name  of  this  important  artist  should  be 
remembered  under  the  form  written  at  the  head  of  this  ehapter. 
Being  a French-speaking  person,  he  would  not  have  called  himself 
“ Van  der  Weyden,”  but  “ de  la  Pasture,”  as,  in  fact,  the  name 
is  written  in  those  Tournay  registers  above  referred  to,  where 
his  existence  is  first  recorded.  Some  of  us,  whom  the  dire  mis- 
fortunes of  the  Great  War  brought  in  contact  with  many  Belgian 
wounded  and  refugees,  have  begun  to  grasp  the  fact  that  modern 
Belgium  is  peopled  by  two  several  races,  dwelling  side  by  side 
but  differing  fundamentally  from  one  another.  We  divide  them 
broadly  into  Flemings  and  Walloons,  the  former  speaking  a language 
which  foreigners  can  scarcely  distinguish  from  Dutch,  the  latter 
talking  French.  The  Netherland  provinces  in  the  fifteenth  century 
were  similarly  peopled  by  Flemish-speaking  and  French-speaking 
folk.  To  the  former  belonged  the  Van  Eycks,  to  the  latter  Roger 
de  la  Pasture.  Artists  of  these  two  groups,  however  similar  the 
technique  and  design  of  their  pictures  may  have  been,  and  though 
they  employed  the  same  conventions,  do,  in  fact,  manifest  their 
race  in  their  works,  the  Flemings  and  Dutch  being  of  one  sort, 
the  Walloons  and  French  of  another.  Yet  it  is  inadvisable  to 
divide  our  subject  along  this  line  of  cleavage,  because  artists  of 
both  kinds  lived  and  worked  side  by  side,  acting  and  reacting 
on  one  another  so  intricately  and  intimately  that  they  have  to  be 
regarded  as  belonging  to  a single  school.  The  school,  in  fact, 
swallowed  up  whomsoever  came  within  its  vortex,  and  that  whether 
he  arrived  as  a formed  artist,  a master  of  the  craft,  or  a budding 
student.  Dutch  Bouts  and  German  Memling  alike  received  the 
common  stamp,  though  to  the  end  their  racial  difference  is  observ- 
able in  the  work  of  their  hands.  Campin  alone  is  hard  to  analyse. 

129 


130 


ROGER  VAN  DER  WEYDEN 


He  was  the  first  important  painter,  settled  in  the  French-speaking 
part  of  the  country,  to  catch  the  new  spirit  and  learn  the  new  style 
and  methods,  but  his  paintings  are  not  characterized  by  French 
lucidity,  so  evident  a feature  in  the  work  of  his  pupil  Roger,  Flemish 
force  rather  than  French  grace  is  manifest  in  Campin’s  pictures, 
though  it  would  not  be  wise  to  base  conclusions  or  arguments 
on  qualities  so  difficult  to  identify  and  almost  impossible  to  demon- 
strate to  an  unsympathetic  or  hostile  critic. 

As  already  stated,  one  Master  Rogier  de  la  Pasture  was  hos- 
pitably entertained  and  honoured  at  a banquet  at  Tournay  on 
November  17,  1426  ; in  the  following  March  one  Rogelet  de  la 
Pasture  became  the  apprentice  of  Robert  Campin  in  that  same 
city.  The  statements  appear  to  be  contradictory  ; the  copyist 
of  the  register  may  have  blundered  over  name  or  dates  ; but  it 
is  probable  that  both  entries  apply  to  the  same  artist.^  In  1426 
Roger  was  some  27  years  old,  having  been  born  in  1399  or 
1400,  probably  in  a house  in  la  Roc  Saint-Nicaire  at  Tournay  of 
which  his  father  Henry  de  la  Pasture  was  the  recorded  owner 
in  1408.  He  came  of  a family  of  metal-workers,  long  settled 
in  industrious  Tournay,  though  it  is  the  tradition  of  sculpture 
rather  than  metal-work  that  can  be  traced  in  Roger’s  earliest 
pictures.  A Henry  de  la  Pasture  is  recorded  as  a sculptor  working 
in  1424  for  the  Duke  of  Brabant  at  Louvain  ; he  is  thought  to 
have  been  Roger’s  father.  Sculptors,  anyhow,  were  much  to  the 
fore  in  Tournay,  as  already  noted,  and  Roger  received  early 
impressions  from  the  busy  local  school. 

In  1432  Roger  completed  his  service  under  Campin  and  became 
a master-painter.  In  1436  he  is  mentioned  as  town-painter  of 
Brussels.  For  that  city  he  made  the  much-admired  “ Justice  ” 
pictures  which  Diirer  saw,  but  we  cannot,  the  flames  of  war  having 
devoured  them  in  1695.  The  only  record  of  their  composition  may 
be  in  certain  tapestries  in  the  Museum  at  Berne,  which  the  Swiss 
captured  from  Charles  the  Rash.^  At  the  best,  however,  tapestries 

^ Basing  his  contentions  on  this  passage  and  on  the  vague  statements  of  early  writers 
Wiirzbach  has  tried  to  split  Roger  into  two  different  individuals,  with  no  better  success, 
as  it  seems  to  me,  than  Durand-Greville  had  with  his  bisection  of  Peter  Christus. 

2 Doubt  has  been  thrown  upon  the  supposed  relation  of  the  tapestries  to  the  burnt 
pictures  {Repertorium,  1913,  p.  303) ; but  Kaufmann  (Rep.  1916,  p.  15)  upholds  it  and 


THE  DESCENT  FROM  THE  CROSS 


131 


throw  little  light  upon  the  quality  of  painted  originals.  If  we  accept 
as  one  of  Roger’s  earliest  existing  works  the  famous  Descent  from 
the  Cross  in  the  Chapter  House  of  the  Escorial,  which  was  painted 
for  Notre  Dame  outside  the  walls  of  Louvain,  it  forms  an  admirable 
foundation  for  the  study  of  our  master.  This  is  no  tentative  work, 
but  the  product  of  a fully  formed  and  thoroughly  independent 
artist,  with  an  ideal  all  his  own  and  power  to  give  it  vigorous 
expression.  Obviously,  he  was  here  designing  in  terms  of  sculpture. 
There  is  little  depth  to  the  group  of  figures,  no  more  than  was 
supplied  by  the  shallow  gilt  box  or  frame  in  which  the  group  is 
represented  as  contained.  The  clever  contemporary  woodcarvers 
of  that  day  could  easily  have  sculptured  this  design  in  oak  ; and 
painters,  whose  chief  business  even  then  was  to  colour  sculpture 
rather  than  to  paint  pictures,  would  have  used  the  same  colours 
and  ended  by  turning  out  a work  that  would  have  produced  almost 
the  same  effect  as  the  picture  itself.  Anyone  can  see  at  a glance 
how  strong  an  impression  Roger  had  derived  from  Campin.  But 
the  pupil  has  surpassed  the  master  in  several  very  important 
respects.  Campin’s  compositions  are  confused  and  haphazard  com- 
pared with  this.  Here  is  a rhythm  of  line,  a balance  of  mass,  an 
informal  symmetry,  far  beyond  Campin’s  attainment.  The  lucidity 
of  France  has  mastered,  drilled,  and  brought  into  order  his  helter- 
skelter  assemblages  of  folk.  Moreover,  Roger  intelligibly  employs 
the  common  language  of  humanity  to  express  emotion.  These 
people  are,  in  fact,  sorrowful.  Their  gestures,  their  looks,  are 
those  of  grief.  The  Liverpool  copy  of  Campin’s  Descent  no  doubt 
does  small  justice  to  the  original,  yet,  making  every  allowance, 
how  far  that  picture  must  have  fallen  behind  this  in  emotional 
vividness  I Roger’s  appeal  to  the  feelings  of  his  contemporaries 
was  lucid  and  direct.  Hence  the  great  popularity  and  wide- 
spread influence  of  his  work.  The  Van  Eycks  were  greater 
artists,  but  they  did  not  provoke  such  emulation  and  imitation 
as  Roger.  They  satisfy  the  elect  of  every  age  ; he  appealed  more 
strongly  to  the  fifteenth  century  public.  The  style  and  ideal  of 
the  Van  Eycks  never  became  common  guild-property,  but  the 

claims  that  a head  in  the  tapestries  is  a self-portrait  of  Roger.  The  face  produces  a very 
different  impression  from  the  likeness  at  Arras,  though  feature  for  feature  the  two  are 
not,  perhaps,  absolutely  inconsistent  with  one  another. 


132  ROGER  VAN  DER  WEYDEN 

guilds  fastened  on  Roger’s  compositions  and  gave  them  wide 
currency. 

Another  of  Roger’s  earliest  independent  works  was  even  more 
popular  and  more  frequently  copied  than  the  Descent ; I refer 
to  the  picture  of  St.  Luke  making  the  portrait  of  the  Virgin  and 
Child.  If  any  surviving  example  is  the  original,  it  must  be  that 
in  Boston  Museum,  for  a photograph  of  which  I have  to  thank  the 
kindness  of  the  Director.  I have  never  seen  the  picture.  Full- 
sized  contemporary  copies  are  in  the  Galleries  at  Petrograd 
and  Munich,  and  in  the  collection  of  Count  Wilczeck  at  Vienna. 
An  etching,  after  a picture  containing  the  Virgin  and  Child  alone, 
illustrated  the  catalogue  of  the  De  Beurnonville  sale  (Paris,  1881). 
Another  excellent  full-length  copy  of  the  same  figure,  but  with 
greyhounds  instead  of  people  in  the  background,  belonged  to 
Sir  Francis  Palmer.  As  for  half-length  repetitions  and  imitations 
of  the  Virgin  and  Child,  they  are  very  numerous,  mostly  dating 
from  about  the  year  1500.  The  best  of  them  known  to  me  is  on 
the  diptych  of  Joos  van  der  Burg,  which  is  in  the  Fogg  Museum  at 
Cambridge,  U.S.A.  The  portrait  appears  to  have  been  painted 
by  Gerard  David  in  or  soon  after  1496,  the  date  on  the  back  of 
one  of  the  panels.  The  frequency  with  which  this  picture  was 
copied  may  be  due  to  the  fact  that  it  was  the  altar-piece  of  a 
chapel  of  a Guild  of  Painters,  for  which  position  the  subject  is 
evidently  suitable.  Roger  obviously  borrowed  the  general  com- 
position from  the  Van  Eycks’  Rolin  Madonna,  but  he  painted 
on  a larger  scale,  in  more  summary  fashion,  and  he  produced 
a picture  more  easy  of  general  comprehension.  The  decorated 
columns  of  his  portico  recall  Campin’s  Marriage  of  the  Virgin, 
but  such  details  in  no  way  diminish  the  spontaneity  and  originality 
of  the  work  as  a whole.  It  is  natural  to  inquire  whether  he  did 
not  use  his  own  head  as  model  for  St.  Luke ; but  a drawing 
in  the  Arras  Collection  inscribed  as  his  own  portrait  depicts  a 
different  kind  of  man.  Roger  cannot  have  been  as  old  when  he 
painted  this  Madonna  as  St.  Luke  looks.  On  the  other  hand, 
there  is  at  Hermannstadt  a portrait  which  is  claimed  by  an  old 
inscription  on  the  back  to  be  of  Roger  by  Bouts.  It  might  depict 
the  same  model  as  St.  Luke  at  a later  period  of  his  life  ; but  as  it 
is  a sixteenth  century  picture,  and  has  nothing  to  do  with  Bouts, 


METHODS  OF  PORTRAITURE 


133 


the  authority  of  the  inscription  is  feeble.  The  Arras  drawing  has 
the  better  claim  to  preserve  the  lineaments  of  our  artist. 

It  is  an  interesting  fact  that  St.  Luke  contents  himself  with 
making  a silver-point  drawing  of  the  Virgin  from  the  life.  He  will 
paint  his  picture  from  the  drawing.  That  was  the  general  custom 
of  fifteenth  century  portrait-painters.  Sitters  were  busy  folk  and 
probably  did  not  realize  the  necessity  of  giving  an  artist  plenty  of 
time.  Thus  Niccolo  Albergati  was,  as  we  know,  drawn  with  the 
silver-point  by  John  van  Eyck,  for  we  possess  the  drawing  with 
notes  as  to  details  of  colour  written  on  it.  From  that  drawing 
the  picture  was  painted.  Such,  also,  was  generally  Holbein’s 
method  ; we  happen  to  know  that  he  only  had  one  hour’s  sitting 
from  Christina  for  the  beautiful  full-length  picture  in  the  National 
Gallery.  Many  of  the  Windsor  Holbein  drawings  were  authorities 
for  the  existing  paintings  done  from  them.  By  the  sixteenth 
century,  however,  it  is  evident  that  some  artists  at  least  painted 
portraits  direct  from  the  model  when  they  could.  Massys  and 
Mabuse  must  have  done  so,  at  least  in  some  cases,  unless  existing 
paintings  deceive  me.  Moreover,  Colin  de  Coter,  when  he  imitated 
this  very  Madonna  by  Roger,  put  brushes  and  palette  into  the 
hands  of  St.  Luke  and  set  up  a panel  on  an  easel  before  him,  thus 
indicating  a change  in  studio  customs. 

Several  small,  finely  finished  paintings,  accepted  as  Roger’s 
by  a previous  generation  of  historians,  were  taken  away  from  him 
and  divided  between  two  imagined  followers  by  recent  critics, 
who  would  have  nothing  to  write  about  if  they  were  not  allowed 
to  rob  dead  painters  of  their  works  and  attribute  them  to  artists 
of  their  own  invention.  Friedlander,  with  his  usual  sanity, 
gives  them  all  back  again,  and  shows  that  they  are  to  be  regarded 
as  early  works  by  our  master.  They  are  the  following  : — 

A diptych  of  the  Virgin  and  St.  Catherine  at  Vienna. 

A seated  Virgin  in  a niche,  at  Lord  Northbrook’s. 

A Visitation  in  the  Speck  von  Sternburg  Coll.  (Liitzschena). 

Another  framed  as  a diptych  with  a kneeling  and  much 
over-painted  donor,  in  Turin  Gallery. 

An  Annunciation  in  the  Louvre. 

Another  at  Antwerp. 


134 


ROGER  VAN  DER  WEYDEN 


The  St.  Catherine  in  the  Vienna  diptych  is  closely  connected 
with  the  St.  Barbara  in  Campin’s  ^Verl  diptych  of  1438.  The 
Louvre  Annunciation  ^ contains  dinanderie  and  other  details 
likewise  to  be  found  in  the  same  panel.  The  hand  of  Christ  in 
the  Mary  triptych  (to  be  referred  to  presently)  is  identical  with 
the  Baptist’s  hand  in  the  Werl  wing.  Here  it  certainly  looks  as 
though  Campin  was  the  borrower,  but  there  may  have  been  a 
yet  earlier  original  by  him  which  has  been  lost.  The  Visitations 
may  both  descend  from  Campin,  for  this  composition  was  used  by 
Daret  about  1434  in  the  Arras  picture,  and  the  probability  is  evident 
that  he  took  it  with  him  from  Campin’s  studio,  and  that  Roger 
derived  it  from  the  same  source.^  Thus,  in  all  these  little  pictures 
we  find  Roger  manifesting  the  influence  of  his  master,  not  slavishly 
but  independently,  taking  what  he  needed  and  using  it  freely  for 
his  own  purposes  and  altered  according  to  his  own  design. 

In  both  the  little  Madonnas  the  Virgin,  beautifully  robed,  is 
framed  within  a Gothic  niche  adorned  with  sculpture  excellently 
designed  and  rendered.  Of  all  the  architectural  sculpture  found 
in  fifteenth  century  pictures  of  the  school,  this  is  best.  The 
grace  of  the  little  figures  and  groups  is  undeniable.  The  artist’s 
touch,  moreover,  is  charming.  There  is  quality  even  in  his  tiny 
spots  of  light.  The  hands,  the  features,  the  pose,  the  grouping — 
all  is  full  of  art.  Both  the  Visitations  are  deservedly  admired. 
The  head  of  St.  Elizabeth  in  that  at  Turin  so  impressed  a good 
Antwerp  painter  of  some  fifty  years  later  that  he  copied  it  in 
an  altar-piece  at  Maria-Ter-Heyde.  Moreover,  the  buildings  in 
the  background  were  certainly  sketched  and  freely  repeated  at 
home  by  the  German  painter  to  whom  the  St.  Ulrich  Church  at 
Augsburg  owes  a well-known  picture  of  the  legend  of  its  patron 
saint.  The  Antwerp  and  Louvre  Annunciations  fixed  a type 
often  followed  by  artists  of  the  next  generation,  such  as  the  painter 
of  the  well-known  Sterzing  altar-piece,  who  used  to  be  identified 
with  Hans  Multscher.  A fine  drawing  of  the  Virgin’s  head  and 

^ The  right  hand  of  Gabriel  should  hold  a sceptre,  which  must  have  been  painted 
out.  It  appears  in  the  copy  of  the  Louvre  picture,  which  was  No.  217  in  the  Sedelmeyer 
sale  of  1907. 

2 An  early  sixteenth  century  Bruges  school  copy  of  the  same  composition  was  No.  17 
in  the  Winter  Exhibition  of  the  Burlington  Fine  Arts  Club  in  1905-6,  lent  by  Mr.  Henry 
Oppenheimer.  Other  repetitions  are  named  by  Winkler  (p.  80). 


WORKS  OF  HIS  EARLY  PERIOD 


135 


two  of  the  head  of  the  Child,  all  in  the  Print  Room  of  the  British 
Museum,  are  aseribed  by  Winkler  to  the  painter  of  this  group  of 
pictures  and  may  be  comfortably  passed  on  to  Roger  himself. 

Roger’s  early  success  as  a painter  of  pathetic  subjects  led,  we 
may  suppose,  to  a demand  for  more  of  such  pictures  from  him 
and  his  imitators.  To  his  early  period  belong  also  the  Vienna 
Crucifixion,  that  in  the  J.  G.  Johnson  Collection,  and  the  Pietas 
(by  him  or  painted  in  his  studio)  which  are  in  Lord  Powis’  collection 
and  the  Brussels  and  Berlin  Galleries ; perhaps,  also,  another 
important  triptych  with  a Descent  from  the  Cross,  known  to  us 
only  from  copies.  The  Vienna  Crucifixion  is  one  of  his  most 
distinguished  works  for  excellence  of  composition,  delicacy  of 
handling,  and  refinement  of  feeling.  It  is  the  central  panel  of  a 
small  triptych  with  the  Magdalen  and  St.  Veronica  on  the  wings. 
Little  angels  mourning  as  they  flutter  in  the  sky  remind  us  of 
earlier  bird-like  spirits  of  the  kind  in  the  margins  of  such  manu- 
scripts as  the  Hours  of  Turin,  but  Roger  gave  them  a new  vivacity 
and  a deeper  pathos.  A wide,  decorative  landscape  forms  the  back- 
ground, but  it  is  not  comparable  to  those  of  Hubert  van  Eyck. 
French-speaking  artists  of  this  century  had  no  such  feeling  for 
and  delight  in  landscape  as  was  common  to  the  Flemings  and  the 
Dutch.  We  must  wait  for  the  landscape  backgrounds  of  Bouts 
to  point  the  way  which  was  to  be  followed  by  Massys,  Patinir, 
and  the  rest,  and  was  to  lead  on  to  the  great  Dutch  landscape  school 
of  the  seventeenth  century.  This  Crucifixion  of  Roger’s  was  often 
imitated,  notably  in  three  good  school-pictures  at  Dresden, 
the  Prado,  and  Don  Pablo  Bosch’s  Collection  (Madrid),  each  in  its 
turn  claimed  for  an  original  by  the  Master.*  They  are,  however, 
all  imitations,  made  up  with  figures  copied  from  this  and  the 
other  identifiable  original.  The  portraits  of  the  donor  and  his 
wife  on  the  Vienna  panel  show  Roger  at  his  best.  She,  indeed, 
has  little  charm  of  expression,  but  his  face  is  illuminated  with  an 
ecstatic  smile,  which  draws  its  origin  from  the  mystics  and  indicates 

* Another  allied  version  is  a triptych  which  passed  through  the  hands  of  Messrs. 
Agnew,  who  kindly  gave  me  a photograph  of  it  (Gray,  28501).  The  principal  group 
agrees  with  the  Vienna  original ; a kneeling  Mary  replaces  the  donors.  The  Magdalen 
and  St.  Veronica  appear  reversed  on  the  wings  with  an  extra  figure  beside  each.  This 
picture  and  the  National  Gallery  Christ  taking  leave  of  the  Virgin  (No.  1086),  which  Winkler 
attributes  to  a follower  of  Campin,  may  be  by  the  same  hand. 


136 


ROGER  VAN  DER  WEYDEN 


the  religious  medium  from  which  Roger  received  his  inspiration. 
The  lady  is  well  dressed  and  well  posed.  The  fashion  of  her 
costume  enables  us  to  fix  as  approximately  contemporary  the  agree- 
able half-length  likeness  of  another  woman,  now  in  the  Museum 
at  Berlin.  Two  other  female  portraits,  one  in  the  National  Gallery* 
and  the  other  at  Worlitz,  are  of  later  date. 

A lithograph  reproduced  in  the  Revue  de  VArt  Chretien 
(1906,  p.  297)  is  the  only  accessible  representation  of  a picture 
of  the  Circumcision,  which  at  that  time  was  in  private  possession 
in  Paris.  The  scene  is  laid  in  the  church  of  Notre  Dame  at  Dijon. 
From  the  fashion  of  the  donors’  costumes,  the  picture  seems  to 
be  of  about  this  date.  Apparently  it  possesses  elements  which 
suggest  the  authorship  of  Campin  or  Roger.  It  is  evidently  an 
important  picture,  but  the  lithograph  suffices  only  to  quicken  the 
desire  to  behold  the  original. 

An  important  votive  picture  by  Roger  in  which  the  kneeling 
lady  resembled  the  donoress  in  the  Vienna  Crucifixion  was  sketched 
in  its  place  in  the  Convent  of  Batalha,  Portugal,  by  the  painter, 
D.  A.  de  Sequeira,  late  in  the  eighteenth  century.*  It  showed  the 
enthroned  Virgin  between  kneeling  portraits  of  Duke  Philip  the 
Good,  his  son  Charles,  and  the  Duchess  Isabella  of  Portugal.  It 
must  have  been  painted  about  1448-9.  Perhaps  some  day  it  may 
reappear.  Here,  again,  the  sketch  reveals  only  the  composition, 
not  the  quality  of  the  work. 

Of  the  three  Pietas,  Lord  Powis’  is  the  best,  but  that  at  Brussels 
may  likewise  be  by  Roger  ; the  Berlin  example  is  probably  the 
work  of  an  assistant.  All  three  have  the  same  central  group 
of  Christ  and  the  Virgin,  but  differ  in  other  figures.  In  compo- 
sition the  Brussels  example  is  best  and  unites  all  the  actors  by  a 
common  emotion,  so  that  doubtless  this  represents  Roger’s  original 
composition,  the  patching-in  of  donors  and  saints  in  the  others 

* This  has  been  attributed  to  Campin,  but  the  costume  is  of  the  same  fashion  as  that 
worn  by  Margaret  of  York,  so  that  the  date  must  be  too  late  for  Campin.  The  Worlitz 
lady’s  fashion  is  almost  the  same. 

2 See  Comptes  Rendus,  Acad.  d.  Inscrip.  (Paris),  1913,  p.  717.  A picture  dated  1478 
at  Chateau  de  Montmirey-la-Ville  (Jura),  painted  by  a Flemish  artist,  includes  a portrait 
of  Philip  the  Good,  after  the  Madrid  original  referred  to  below,  and  portraits  of  Isabella 
of  Portugal,  the  young  Charles  the  Rash,  and  two  deceased  children,  with  saints.  See 
Bull.  Soc.  antiq.  de  France,  1911,  p.  155. 


THE  SEVEN  SACRAMENTS 


137 


being  obviously  prescribed.  No  other  painting  by  our  master 
shows  an  effect  corresponding  to  that  of  the  arch  of  yellow  sky, 
flaming  through  red  and  deepening  into  dark  blue,  which 
effectively  enframes  the  figures.  The  Magdalen  is  tender  and  loving 
in  her  grief,  far  more  attractive  than  that  peculiar  figure  with 
the  awkwardly,  almost  impossibly  raised  and  disjointed  arms, 
which  appears  on  the  great  Madrid  Descent,  and  was  so  often  copied, 
even  the  Master  himself  repeating  it.  But  this  Magdalen  is  graceful, 
and  with  all  her  simplicity  far  more  pathetic  than  the  other. 
Peter  Christus  seems  to  have  borrowed  a suggestion  from  her  for 
the  Pieta  painted  in  his  last  years.  As  for  the  lost  Deposition, 
we  know  its  composition  from  a drawing  in  the  Louvre  and  a 
late  copy  at  Naples,  while  Prof.  Becker  (Leipzig)  owns  a draw- 
ing copied  from  one  of  its  wings.*  Was  the  original  necessarily 
by  Roger  ? Everyone  seems  to  think  it  was  ; but  I have  my 
doubts.  Anyhow,  it  is  lost,  and  no  amount  of  argument  will 
bring  it  into  existence  again.  A Descent  from  the  Cross  at  Munich 
(104)  is  thought  to  be  a copy  of  another  lost  Roger,  known  also 
from  other  imitations. 

In  The  Hague  Gallery  is  a Mourning  over  the  Dead  Christ, 
somewhat  later  in  date  and  with  more  figures  than  the  group 
just  noticed.  It  was  painted  for  Nicholas  le  Ruistre.  Though 
often  ascribed  to  a good  pupil,  Friedlander  attributes  it  to  Roger’s 
own  hand.*  Nicodemus,  if  it  be  he,  with  his  hand  raised  to  his 
cap,  is  a richly  dressed  courtier,  the  donor  a correspondingly 
worldly  ecclesiastic  with  a face  altogether  devoid  of  emotion,  in 
marked  contrast  to  the  sorrowing  people  he  is  supposed  to  be 
contemplating. 

The  Seven  Sacraments  altar-piece  at  Antwerp,  rather  earlier 
in  date  than  The  Hague  picture,  is  linked  to  the  preceding  group 
by  the  Crucifixion  in  the  foreground  of  the  central  panel.  It 
may  be  noted  in  passing  that  a woman  seated  on  the  ground  reading 
in  a book  bears  strong  resemblance  to  the  fine  fragment  with  a 
similar  figure  in  the  National  Gallery,  one  of  Roger’s  earliest 
works,  in  which  he  shows  himself  closely  dependent  on  Robert 
Campin.  A woman’s  head  on  the  opposite  wing  should  also 

* Burlington  Mag.,  January  1914. 

* See  Reo.  Univ.  des  Arts,  1885,  ii,  p.  168,  and  Oud  Holland,  1901,  p.  141. 


138 


ROGER  VAN  DER  WEYDEN 


be  observed  as  apparently  suggested  by  John  van  Eyck’s  portrait 
of  his  wife,  which  Roger  must  have  seen  and  admired.  The  arms 
on  this  altar-piece  are  those  of  the  Tournay  Chapter  and  of  Bishop 
John  Chavrot  (1437-60),  for  whom  it  was  probably  painted  about 
1446.  The  Crucifixion  is  emblematically  introduced  into  the 
nave  of  a fine  Gothic  church,  ‘ where,  at  the  altar  against  the  choir- 
screen,  a priest  is  elevating  the  Host.  The  symbolism  is  obvious. 
The  other  six  sacraments  are  depicted  in  the  side-chapels  of  the 
aisles  on  the  two  wings.  The  authorship  of  this  attractive  picture 
has  been  unduly  questioned.  It  will  be  noted  that  an  angel  holding 
a scroll  hovers  over  each  side-chapel.  These  angels  are  of  different 
colours.  The  angel  of  Baptism  is  white,  of  Marriage  blue,  of 
Ordination  purple.  The  colours  were  not  used  at  haphazard. 
They  are  emblematic.  Thus,  in  the  three-panel  altar-piece  of 
Granada,  dating  from  this  period  of  Roger’s  career,  we  are  shown 
three  incidents  in  the  life  of  the  Virgin  : her  joy  over  the  new- 
born Babe,  her  sorrow  at  the  foot  of  the  Cross,  her  consolation 
when  Christ  appears  to  her  after  the  Resurrection.  In  the  first 
her  robe  is  white,  and  the  border  embroidered  with  the  words 
“ My  spirit  hath  rejoiced  in  God  my  Saviour.”  In  the  second  her 
robe  is  blood-red.  In  the  third  it  is  blue.  In  the  similarly  con- 
structed altar-piece  of  John  the  Baptist,  the  robe  held  by  an  angel 
for  the  newly  baptized  Christ  to  wear  is  purple,  the  colour  of  the 
angel  of  Ordination.’ 

Such  symbolism  is  a mechanical  affair,  but  it  was  very  popular 
throughout  the  Middle  Ages,  while  the  use  of  definite  liturgical 
colours  for  different  times  and  seasons  goes  back  to  a remote 
antiquity.  This  kind  of  forced  and  artificial  symbolism  culminated 
about  the  twelfth  century.  A single  citation  will  suffice  to  show 
how  the  mediaeval  mind  confused  or  delighted  itself  in  such  gym- 
nastic. Hugo  de  St.  Victor,’  writing  a chapter  on  the  vestment 

1 M.  Lemaire  thinks  that  it  is  Ste.  Gudule’s  of  Brussels  as  it  appeared  in  mid- 
fifteenth century. 

’ In  a fifteenth  century  book,  entitled  Kintscheyt  Ihesu,  the  following  emblematic 
colours  are  prescribed  : for  Purity,  white  ; for  Perseverance,  blue  ; for  Fear,  grey  J 
for  Tribulation,  black  ; for  Truth,  gold  ; for  Love,  red  ; for  Peace,  green.  Countless 
such  mediseval  prescriptions  might  be  cited.  Thus,  “ Virgines  siquidem  in  capite  aliquam 
coronulam  albam,  Martyres  rubeam,  et  Doctores  virides  gestabant.”  Jos.  Angles’ 
Flores  Theol.,  p.  398. 

’ De  Officiis  Ecclesiasticis,  chap.  xlv. 


MEDIEVAL  SYMBOLISM 


139 


called  the  Amice,  says,  “ Every  detail  is  symbolieal  in  Christian 
costume  as  in  the  old  Law.  In  the  sacred  vestments  their  colour, 
their  material,  their  position,  bear  referenee  to  the  four  elements 
of  the  world,  the  two  hemispheres  of  heaven,  the  signs  of  the 
Zodiae.  They  signify  that  all  things  are  subjeet  to  Him  whose 
place  is  taken  by  the  priest  within  the  vestments.  The  Church 
received  the  saered  vestments  from  the  aneient  Law.  The  humeral, 
whieh  they  called  the  ephod  and  we  name  the  amice,  covers  the 
head,  neck,  and  shoulders,  and  is  attached  by  two  strings  to  the 
ehest.  Thus  it  signifies  the  hope  of  eternity,  in  respect  of  which 
the  Apostle  tells  us  : ‘ Put  on  the  breastplate  of  righteousness.’ 
We  cover  with  the  amiee  the  head,  whieh  is  the  seat  of  all  the  senses, 
that  we  may  serve  God  by  the  hope  of  good  everlasting ; we  sur- 
round with  it  the  neek,  through  whieh  the  voiee  passes,  so  that  we 
may  plaee  a guard  upon  it  by  the  same  hope,  and  that  it  may 
only  resound  to  God’s  praise.  We  cover  with  it  the  shoulders, 
which  bear  burdens  in  order  to  learn  to  bear  patiently  the  Saviour’s 
yoke.  We  confine  our  bosom  with  the  cords  of  the  amiee  in 
order  to  repress  unjust  and  futile  thoughts.”  That  kind  of  writing 
is  a mere  convention,  which,  once  aequired,  could  be  indefinitely 
applied.  Anything  could  be  made  emblematic  of  any  idea  what- 
soever. Monkish  readers  of  the  Middle  Age  seem  not  to  have  been 
bored  by  whole  treatises  composed  on  these  lines.  For  us  Roger’s 
pictures  are  neither  better  nor  worse  for  embodying  the  last  relies 
of  this  sort  of  symbolism,  but  in  their  day  they  may  have  been 
assisted  to  popularity  by  it. 

It  has  been  claimed  that  our  artist  also  supplied  designs  of 
the  Seven  Sacraments  to  the  embroiderers  of  the  splendid  set  of 
Burgundian  vestments  whieh  the  Swiss  captured  from  Charles  the 
Rash,  and  are  now  preserved  in  the  Berne  Museum. ‘ Some  draw- 
ings in  the  Ashmolean  Museum  at  Oxford  * and  in  the  E.  de  Roth- 
schild Collection  in  Paris  are  obviously  conneeted  with  these  same 
embroideries.  They  may  be  sketches  for  the  designs  or  made  by 
some  pupil  from  them.  In  any  ease,  they  are  interesting  examples 
of  work  done  in  Roger’s  studio,  though  hardly  by  the  master  himself. 

‘ See  complete  set  of  reproductions  in  J.  Stammler,  Der  Paramentenschatz  . . . zu 
Bern,  1895. 

^ Published  by  the  Vasari  Soc.,  viii,  15-18  ; and  Burlington  Mag.,  Jan.  1914. 


140 


ROGER  VAN  DER  WEYDEN 


Returning  to  the  three-panel  altar-pieees  of  Granada  and  Berlin, 
it  should  be  observed  that  one  panel  of  the  former,  long  ago  stolen 
out  of  the  Chapel  Royal  there,  passed  through  the  Ossuna  Colleetion 
and  the  hands  of  Messrs.  Duveen  into  private  possession.  There 
is  a well-known  ancient  copy  or  studio-replica  of  the  whole  at  Berlin, 
which  came  out  of  the  Convent  of  Miraflores  ; of  the  Berlin  John 
the  Baptist  triptych  a similarly  good  repetition  on  a smaller  scale 
is  at  Frankfurt.  It  is  possible  that  the  Granada  original  was  first 
at  Miraflores,  and  that  when  it  was  taken  away  and  given  to 
the  Chapel  Royal  the  copy  was  substituted  at  the  Abbey.  At 
all  events,  we  have  record  of  the  gift  to  Miraflores  in  1445,  but 
the  work  must  have  been  done  before  1438.  The  tradition  that 
the  original  picture  was  presented  by  Pope  Martin  V to  King 
John  II  can  scarcely  be  true,  because  the  Pope  died  in  1431, 
and  Roger  did  not  leave  Campin  till  the  following  year.  It 
must  be  admitted  that  the  influence  of  Campin  is  strong  in  this 
picture,  as  Winkler  points  out,  but  the  identity  of  Christ’s  right 
hand  in  the  third  panel  with  that  of  John  the  Baptist  in  Campin’s 
Werl  wing  of  1438  is  not  due  to  imitation  of  Campin  by  Roger, 
but  of  Roger  by  Campin.  Calling  the  two  pictures,  for  brevity’s 
sake,  the  Mary  and  John  altar-pieces,  it  will  be  observed  that 
the  arrangement  of  both  is  similar,  with  a sculptured  portal  as  a 
frame  to  each  panel ; but  there  are  noteworthy  differences.  Thus, 
there  is  an  emblematically  coloured  angel  with  a scroll  above 
each  subject  in  the  Mary  altar,  none  in  that  of  John.  In  the 
former  the  arches  are  round,  in  the  latter  pointed.  The  archi- 
tectural features  of  the  background  in  the  Mary  altar  are  like  those 
in  Campin’s  pictures,  not  so  in  the  John  altar.  As  time  went  on, 
then,  Roger  freed  himself  from  the  Romanesque  traditions  which 
Hubert  had  introduced,  perhaps  under  Rhenish  influence,  and 
gravitated  away  toward  the  forms  of  French  Gothic.  The  intro- 
duction of  many  subsidiary  incidents  as  commentary  on  the 
principal  subjects  is  also  a Gothic  invention,  which  we  saw  in  full 
use  in  the  portals  at  Chartres.  A beginner  in  mediaeval  studies 
will  find  profit  in  identifying  each  group  of  sculpture  in  the  vous- 
sures  of  the  portals.  Those  above  the  Nativity,  for  instance, 
represent  incidents  connected  with  the  birth  and  infancy  of 
Christ,  those  above  the  apparition  of  Christ  to  His  mother  with 


HIS  REFINEMENT 


141 


post-Resurrection  legends,  the  Resurrection  itself  occurring  in 
the  background.  The  subjects  sculptured  in  the  capitals  must 
also  be  observed  and  the  legends  on  the  scrolls.  All  have  been 
carefully  planned.  The  decorative  effect  of  the  whole  is  what 
appeals  to  the  modern  eye,  but  the  meaning  had  much  to  do 
with  the  pleasure  of  the  spectator  for  whom  Roger  painted. 

All  these  pictures  are  marked  by  a notable  quality  of  refinement. 
Roger’s  art  is  essentially  refined.  It  thus  contrasts  with  the 
art  of  the  Van  Eycks  and  of  Campin.  This  is  a bold  statement, 
but  it  can  be  justified.  There  is  refinement  in  Hubert’s  work, 
but  it  is  a personal  quality.  Robert’s  is  the  refinement  of  a school. 
It  is  an  inherited  tradition.  It  is  French ; not  personal,  but 
national.  It  is  the  same  quality  that  we  discover  in  the  Parement 
de  Narbonne  or  in  the  miniatures  of  Jacquemart.  It  is,  in  a 
sense,  decadent ; that  is  to  say,  it  is  the  outcome  of  a long-practised 
stereotyped  style.  The  massive  Gothic  forms  of  the  twelfth 
century  gave  place  to  a restrained  monumental  type  in  the 
thirteenth,  and  that,  in  the  fourteenth,  gradually  exchanged 
strength  for  delicacy  and  force  for  grace.  By  the  end  of  the 
fourteenth  century,  we  may  call  the  Gothic  style  decadent  if  we 
please,  but  it  was  obviously  refined,  and  this  refinement  was 
carried  to  the  highest  level  in  the  schools  of  Paris.  It  is  this 
refinement  that  Roger  inherited,  and  he  was  the  first  to  combine 
it  with  important  qualities  that  belonged  to  the  new  school. 
Bandol,  Sluter  and  the  sculptors,  Campin,  the  Van  Eycks — these 
were  the  men  in  whom  the  new  tendencies  were  vigorous,  but 
refinement  was  not  their  forte.  In  fact,  the  movement  they 
fashioned  was  a reaction  against  the  decadent  refinement  of  the 
late  Gothic  style.  Their  work  is  forceful,  massive,  veracious — 
aggressively  veracious  at  times.  Roger  combined  as  much  of 
that  veracity  and  force  as  he  could  assimilate  with  a large  element 
of  the  old  refinement,  and  thus  fashioned  a style  exactly  suited 
to  the  general  taste  of  the  people  who  counted  in  his  day — the 
people  who  had  or  controlled  the  expenditure  of  such  money 
as  was  available  to  pay  for  works  of  art.  For  creative  ability, 
massive  intelligence,  deep  human  insight,  Roger  is  not  comparable 
to  the  Van  Eyeks.  He  was  narrow  beside  them,  but  he  was  lucid, 
comprehensible,  pleasing,  and  refined ; thus  he  attained  a reputation 
II 


142 


ROGER  VAN  DER  WEYDEN 


and  an  influence  much  wider  than  that  directly  commanded  by  his 
greater  contemporary. 

Roger’s  reputation  spread  far.  Soon  after  leaving  Campin 
he  had  settled  at  Brussels,  had  become  town-painter,  and  had 
begun  to  lay  the  foundation  of  a local  school.  There  was  no 
important  school  of  painting  then  at  Bruges.  It  was  at  Brussels 
that  the  manufacture  of  popular  pictures  began  under  Roger’s 
impulse.  But  before  that  school  had  attained  importance,  an 
event  occurred  in  Roger’s  life  to  which  we  must  now  refer.  It 
was  his  visit  to  Italy.  IVhen  he  left  home  and  when  he  returned 
we  do  not  exactly  know,  but  Facius  records  that  he  was  in  Rome 
for  the  Jubilee  of  1450.  He  also  reports  Roger  to  have  said  that 
what  he  most  admired  there  was  Gentile  da  Fabriano’s  work  in 
the  Lateran  basilica.  A well-known  little  Madonna  with  four 
saints  at  Frankfurt  is  a monument  of  this  journey,  and  was 
probably  painted  at  Florence.  On  a shield  at  the  foot  of  it  is  a 
charming  fleur-de-lys,  obviously  Florentine,  perhaps  suggested 
by  that  most  beautiful  of  all  such  formal  flowers  which  is  sculptured 
and  inlaid  into  the  famous  Campanile.  Cosmas  and  Damian  are 
two  of  the  -attendant  saints  ; the  others  are  Peter  and  John  the 
Baptist — patrons  respectively  of  Cosimo  de’  Medici  and  his  sons 
Piero  and  Giovanni.  Obviously,  the  picture  must  have  been  painted 
for  some  member  of  the  House  of  Medici.  It  is  difficult  to  discover 
in  it  any  trace  of  Italian  influence,  except  in  the  composition  of 
the  flgures.  The  Virgin  stands  in  the  midst  under  a canopy, 
in  form  like  that  of  a shower-bath,  just  such  a canopy  as  is  used 
in  the  late  picture  by  Campin  known  to  us  from  the  Louvre  drawing, 
but  Roger  uses  two  little  angels  to  hold  up  the  curtains,  as 
angels  are  often  employed  by  Italian  artists.  Otherwise,  the 
picture  is  wholly  Netherlandish.  An  imitation  of  it  by  some 
unidentified  follower  is  in  the  Cook  Collection  at  Richmond, 
the  background  and  saints  being  different  and  an  angel  holding 
the  crown  over  the  Virgin’s  head.  An  unusual  Holy  Family, 
which  was  in  the  Crespi  Collection  at  Milan  (phot.  Anderson), 
may  have  been  painted  by  the  same  pupil.  In  it  the  Virgin  is 
seated  in  the  open  air  before  a hilly  and  rather  Italian  landscape. 
The  Child,  lying  on  her  lap,  leans  forward  and  embraces  a full- 
sized  cross  maintained  in  an  upright  position  by  a flying  angel. 


HIS  VISIT  TO  ITALY 


143 


A donor,  presented  by  St.  Paul,  kneels  before  her.  Both  these 
works  are  school-pietures  of  good  quality. 

An  Entombment  in  the  Uffizi,  by  Roger  himself,  may  have 
been  painted  in  Italy  or  immediately  after  his  return  home.  In 
composition  it  differs  from  the  type  current  in  the  Netherlands, 
the  figure  of  Christ  being  seen  from  in  front  instead  of  sideways. 
Was  there,  perchance,  any  connexion  between  the  Entombment 
in  the  National  Gallery,  by  some  attributed  to  Michelangelo,  and 
this,  either  direct  or  through  some  earlier  example  influencing 
both  ? The  head  of  Nicodemus  (the  central  figure)  seems  to  be 
a portrait  of  Roger  himself ; at  all  events,  it  is  very  like  the  Arras 
drawing  thus  inscribed.  Crowe  and  Cavalcaselle  thought  that 
this  picture  might  be  identical  with  the  central  panel  of  a triptych 
which  Cyriacus  of  Ancona  saw  in  1449  at  Lionello  d’Este’s  at 
Ferrara,  and  they  were  probably  right.  If  not  painted  at  Ferrara, 
it  must  have  been  done  after  a visit  of  Roger  to  that  court,  because 
there  was  a portrait  of  Lionello  on  one  of  the  wings.*  By  great 
good  luck  another  portrait  of  that  prince  by  Roger  has  come  down 
to  us,  fully  authenticated,  with  arms  and  motto  on  the  back. 
It  is  a strange  example  of  the  direct  impression  of  a peculiar  and 
most  individual  personality  expressed  in  latest  Gothic  terms. 
The  spirit  of  flamboyant  tracery  is  in  his  fingers  and  his  nose  ! 
Every  long  line  that  his  appearance  can  yield  is  selected,  and 
yet  the  man  himself  is  there — not  subtly  studied  as  by  John  van 
Eyck,  but  tastefully  seen  and  refinedly  portrayed  in  a manner 
as  different  as  possible  from  that  of  contemporary  Florentine 
painters.  This  cannot  have  been  the  wing  of  the  picture  recorded 
by  Cyriacus.  Otherwise  the  triptych  would  have  been  of  the  same 
form  as  that  once  buried  in  the  almost  inaccessible  collection 
of  Lady  Theodora  Guest,  but  now  visible  to  all  the  world  in 
the  Louvre.  That  was  probably  a memorial  painting  set  up  soon 
after  the  death  in  1452  of  Jehan  Bracque  of  Tournay.  His  daughter 

* From  Lionello’s  accounts,  we  learn  that  arrangements  were  made  on  Deeember  31, 
1450,  for  Roger  to  be  paid  for  it  at  Bruges.  So  he  was  probably  at  home  again  by  that 
date.  The  kneeling  Magdalen  in  the  foreground  was  copied  into  a pieture  now  in  Brussels 
Gallery  which  was  in  the  Church  of  Notre  Dame  at  Bruges.  It  was  the  altar-piece 
of  the  Guild  of  the  Drie  Sanctinnen  and  was  painted  before  1489  by  the  Bruges  artist 
nieknamed  “the  Master  of  the  St.  Lucia  Legend.”  This  rather  militates  against  the 
idea  that  Roger’s  original  was  painted  in  Italy. 


144 


ROGER  VAN  DER  WEYDEN 


(ob.  1499)  bequeathed  it  to  her  grandson,  and  there  are  later 
mentions  of  it/  The  figures  depicted  are  all  half-lengths  : Christ 
between  the  Virgin  and  St.  John  the  Evangelist  in  the  centre, 
SS.  John  Baptist  and  Magdalen  on  the  wings,  a wide  sweep  of 
landscape  uniting  them  all.  The  most  delightful  part  of  this 
composition  is  the  wing-panel  with  the  Magdalen.  She  is  charming. 
If  England  has  had  the  bad  luck  to  lose  her,  we  may  congratulate 
ourselves  on  still  possessing,  in  the  Print  Room  of  the  British  Museum, 
Roger’s  own  original  silver-point  study  for  her — a work  of  finest 
quality.  Such  original  drawings  are  excessively  rare.  Only  one  is 
known  by  John  van  Eyck,  the  silver-point  life  sketch  of  Albergati. 
By  Roger  we  have  this  and  one  or  two  more — for  example,  the 
delicately  outlined  and  modelled  head  of  a Virgin  in  the  Louvre, 
which  Winkler  identified.  It  is  fortunate  that  the  British  Museum 
likewise  possesses,  from  the  Salting  Collection,  another  fine  drawing 
of  this  same  Magdalen.  Anyone  might  have  been  forgiven  had 
he  mistaken  it  for  an  original ; but  when  the  two  drawings  are 
placed  side  by  side,  the  one  drawn  by  the  master  for  the  picture, 
the  other  copied  by  a first-rate  follower  from  it,  the  difference  is 
obvious.  A copy  by  the  same  hand  of  another  Virgin  and  a 
third  in  the  Bonnat  Collection  at  Bayonne  may  be  mentioned. 
All  are  of  fine  quality,  but  not  on  a level  with  Roger’s  own  work. 

Roger’s  Italian  experiences  and  observations  made  little  direct 
impression  on  his  art,  but  he  seems  to  have  left  a good  reputation 
behind  him.  This  is  proved  by  two  interesting  letters,  which  have 
been  published  by  Malaguzzi  Valeri. ^ The  first,  dated  December  26, 
1460,  is  from  the  Duke  of  Milan  to  the  Duke  of  Burgundy, 
recommending  his  painter  Zanetto  Bugatto,  who  was  going  to 
the  Duke  of  Burgundy’s  dominions  to  study  under  a certain  great 
painter,  named,  perhaps  by  accidental  error,  William.  The  second, 
dated  May  7,  1463,  is  from  the  Duchess  of  Milan  to  Roger,  thanking 
him  for  the  liberality  with  which  he  has  revealed  to  her  painter 
the  secrets  of  his  art ; that  is  to  say,  of  the  Flemish  method  of  apply- 
ing colours.  When  this  correspondence  was  published,  critics 
not  unnaturally  remembered  a certain  troublesomely  problematic 
triptych  in  the  Brussels  Gallery,  painted  in  the  style  of  Roger 

^ See  Gaz.  d.  Beaux-Arts,  Oct.  1913. 

2 In  Pittori  Lombardi  del  Quattrocento,  Milan,  1902. 


ZANETTO  BUGATTO 


145 


and  containing  in  the  foreground,  below  the  Crucifixion,  the  portraits 
of  Francesco  Maria  Sforza,  his  wife  Bianca  Visconti,  and  their 
son  Galeazzo  Maria  Sforza.^  Their  ages  indicate  about  1460-2 
as  the  date  of  the  painting.  The  work,  not  wholly,  at  any  rate, 
by  Roger  himself,  might  well  have  been  painted  in  his  studio  ; 
why  not,  then,  by  Bugatto  ? A fatal  objection  appears  to  be 
the  utter  absence  of  any  Italian  element  in  it  whatever.  It  is 
hard  to  believe  that  a formed  Italian  artist  could  thus  rapidly 
have  abandoned  all  his  home  traditions  and  taken  on  the  style 
of  Roger,  unless,  indeed,  we  are  to  postulate  that  every  detail 
was  drawn  on  the  panel  by  the  Brussels  master  and  the  painting 
done  by  Bugatto  with  colours  mixed  for  him.  Even  thus,  we 
should  expect  some  Lombard  element  to  peep  through.  The  wings 
are  by  another  hand  and  will  be  referred  to  hereafter.  Bugatto 
died  in  1476.  He  is  often  mentioned  as  official  portraitist  or 
painter  in  the  Milanese  account  books.  It  is  difficult  to  believe 
that  the  existence  of  this  triptych  was  in  no  way  connected  with 
Bugatto’s  visit  to  Roger,  even  though  he  had  no  hand  in  the  work.* 
Princely  patrons  were  not  the  only  Italians  to  remember 
Roger  with  respect.  Facius  and  Cyriacus  both  mention  him  honour- 
ably. Antonio  Filarete  praises  him.  Giovanni  Santi  celebrated 
him  in  verse.  He  was  remembered  by  Guicciardini.  When 
he  was  at  home  again  and  the  last  and  most  influential  period  of 
his  career  began,  he  was  the  recognized  head  of  the  Netherlands 
schools  ; his  works  were  known  in  Spain  and  Italy  by  the  best 
connoisseurs  ; his  studio  was  sought  by  students  from  the  Rhine 
and  other  parts  of  Germany  ; and  it  is  evident  that  the  best  painters 
of  France  looked  up  to  him  and  probably  regarded  him  as  the  head 
of  their  school.  The  Master  E.S.  and  after  him  Martin  Schongauer, 
the  two  most  popular  engravers  in  the  Rhine  schools,  fell  under 
his  influence  and  spread  it  abroad.  His  compositions  were  copied 
or  imitated  by  painters  all  over  Germany,  and  it  was  to  him  more 
than  to  any  other  single  artist  that  the  widespread  reputation 


* J.  Mesnil  in  Onze  Kunst,  1908  and  1909,  suggests  that  the  triptych  may  have  been 
painted  for  Alessandro  Sforza,  Francesco’s  brother. 

* On  the  type  of  pictures  with  which  the  name  of  Zanetto  Bugatto  may  most  naturally 
be  associated  compare  Malaguzzi  Valeri,  in  Rassegna  d'Arte,  1911,  pp.  193  sqq.,  and  1912, 
p.  48. 


146 


ROGER  VAN  DER  WEYDEN 


of  “ the  great  artists  of  the  Netherlands  ” in  the  last  half  of  the 
fifteenth  century  was  due. 

When  Chancellor  Rolin  wanted  a great  altar-piece  for  the 
Hospital  he  founded  in  1442-3  at  Beaune,  Roger  was  obviously 
the  man  to  supply  it.  There  are  “reasons  for  thinking  that  it 
must  have  been  finished  before  the  Italian  journey,  though  I have 
seen  it  asserted  that  the  order  was  not  given  until  1451. ^ The 
style  of  Roger  is  visible  through  all  its  many  panels,  but  not 
everywhere  his  hand.  The  main  subject,  stretching  across  from 
panel  to  panel  when  the  doors  are  open,  is  the  Last  Judgment. 
It  is  not  dramatically  impressive.  The  finest  figure  is  that  of 
white-robed  St.  Michael  standing  in  the  midst,  weighing  souls, 
with  trumpeting  angels  fluttering  about — a vision  that  withdraws 
the  eye  from  the  unimpressive  Christ  above.  The  Virgin  is  like- 
wise a beautiful  figure,  but  the  subject  was  not  suited  to  Roger’s 
genius  and  the  parts  are  better  than  the  whole.  The  fussy  and 
meaningless  gesticulation  of  so  many  hands  gets  on  one’s  nerves.* 

Treasurer  Bladelin,  founder  of  Middelburg,  followed  the 
example  of  the  Chancellor,  and  ordered  from  Roger  a triptych 
for  the  altar  of  his  own  new  church.  He  had  the  luck  to  obtain 
the  painter’s  masterpiece  in  this  kind.  Here  are  no  sculptured 
arches,  no  multiplicity  of  commenting  details,  but,  for  the  central 
panel,  a simple,  dignified,  spacious,  and  delightful  representation 
of  the  Nativity,  with  a very  beautiful  Virgin,  some  charming 
angels,  and  the  best  that  could  be  done  with  the  kneeling  donor, 
whose  head  makes  amends  for  his  legs.  Netherlandish  and  many 
German  painters  were  content  to  repeat  this  type  for  the  treatment 


1 Pope  Eugenius  gave  authority  for  the  dedication  of  the  Hospital  to  St.  Anthony. 
Pope  Nicholas  (1447-55)  permitted  the  dedication  to  be  changed  to  St.  John  Baptist. 
It  is  Anthony  who  appears  on  the  outside  of  the  wings,  which  would  scarcely  have  been 
painted  till  the  important  parts  of  the  picture  were  finished.  The  Pope  alongside  of  the 
Duke  within  is  generally  called  Eugenius — I know  not  on  what  authority.  It  would 
seem,  therefore,  that  the  picture  was  at  least  far  advanced,  if  not  finished,  by  1447. 
Winkler  is  wrong  in  stating  that  both  saints  appear  on  the  outsides  of  the  wings.  They 
do  not. 

2 Two  other  great  altar-pieces  in  France  were  likewise  in  their  turns  attributed  to 
Roger  : the  retable  of  Ambierle  Abbey  (Loire),  dated  1466  (i.e.  two  years  after  Roger’s 
death),  and  the  Crucifixion  retable  of  the  Parlement  of  Paris,  of  about  1475,  now  in  the 
Louvre.  Both  show  the  continuing  influence  of  our  artist  upon  the  best  painters  of 
France. 


THE  MIDDELBURG  ALTAR-PIECE 


147 


of  the  Nativity  which  Roger  thus  fixed,  but  it  was  a pity  that  he 
did  not  choose  a more  attractive  model  for  the  Babe.  The  altar- 
piece  for  St.  Columba’s  at  Cologne  must  have  been  painted  about 
the  same  time  (say,  c.  1455-9).  A similar  street-view  is  in  the 
background  of  both.  The  subjects  selected  were  the  Adoration  of 
the  Magi  with  the  Annunciation  and  Presentation  for  the  wings. 
Numerous  imitations  show  how  well  their  treatment  pleased  the 
taste  of  the  day.  The  magnificently  clothed  and  proudly  up- 
standing figure  of  the  Moorish  King  (who  used  to  be  miscalled  a 
portrait  of  Charles  the  Rash  '■),  the  hooded  Virgin,  and  the  turbaned 
girl  behind  her  with  the  basket  of  doves — these  are  the  figures 
upon  which  a modern  eye  will  rest  with  pleasure.  The  forms 
of  religious  art  are  preserved  and  even  popularized,  but  all  inspira- 
tion is  gone  ; yet  as  a decorative  background  to  an  altar  these 
panels  must  have  been  effective. 

A mere  mention  of  the  retable  painted  for  John  Robert,  Abbot 
of  Cambrai,  will  suffice.  It  is  now  in  the  Prado.  It  was  ordered 
in  1455  and  finished  within  four  years,  but  the  work  was  mainly, 
if  not  wholly,  done  by  assistants,  and  the  design  harks  back  to 
the  old-fashioned  type  of  the  John  and  Mary  triptychs. 

Whether  Roger  was  stimulated  to  greater  activity  in  portrait- 
painting by  his  visit  to  Italy,  or  whether  a growing  reputation 
led  to  his  being  more  frequently  employed  by  sitters,  certain  it 
is  that  the  bulk,  if  not  all,  of  his  existing  men’s  portraits,  except 
Lionello’s,  date  from  the  years  following  his  return  from  the  South. 
The  Berlin  likeness  of  Charles  the  Rash,  as  Count  of  Charolais, 
approximates  most  closely  in  treatment  to  that  of  Lionello.  Un- 
fortunately, the  face  does  not  illuminate  his  character  as  history 
reveals  it.  One  would  call  him  lethargic,  sensual,  and  stupid, 
evidently  the  son  of  his  father,  but  lacking  his  father’s  brains. 
The  Philip  de  Croy  (Antwerp)  and  the  Knight  of  the  Golden  Fleece 
(Brussels),  holding  an  arrow  as  prize-winner  in  some  archery  con- 
test, are  of  maturer  quality,  both  distinguished  works.  If  they 
lack  the  close  impartial  analysis  of  John  van  Eyck,  they  replace 

^ The  tradition  that  portraits  of  PhOip  the  Good  and  his  son  appeared  on  this  picture 
may  have  arisen  from  a confusion  with  another  picture  on  which  they,  as  well  as  Isabella 
of  Portugal,  were  portrayed  in  adoration  before  the  Virgin  and  Child.  It  was  dated  1449 
and  was  last  heard  of  in  Spain  (Rev.  ArcheoL,  1914,  p.  101).  See  above,  p.  136. 


148 


ROGER  VAN  DER  WEYDEN 


it  by  a perception  of  refinement  which  was  foreign  to  the  sym- 
pathies of  the  greater  artist.  Philip  de  Croy’s  panel  must  have 
belonged  to  a diptych  or  triptych,  and  the  same  is  true  of  the 
Lusent  Froimont  at  Venice  (recently  returned  to  Belgium)  and 
the  much  damaged  Jean  de  Gros,  which  was  in  the  Kann 
Collection. 

A man’s  portrait  of  finest  quality  which  turned  up  in  the  far 
west  of  the  Dominion  of  Canada  and  was  for  sale  in  London  in 
1916  (about  8 in.  by  6 in.)  depicts  a middle-aged  courtier  of  very 
refined  expression,  with  hair  cut  low  above  the  eyebrows,  and 
hands  joined  in  attitude  of  prayer ; it  also  was  probably  the  half 
of  a small  diptych.  The  face  is  in  three-quarters  to  the  left,  the 
expression  attentive  and  alert.  This  is  the  type  of  portrait  in 
which  Memling  most  approximates  to  Roger.  It  was  probably 
painted  about  the  time  when  he  was  working  in  Roger’s  studio.^ 
Equally  fine  in  their  way  are  the  Duke  Philip  at  Madrid  and  the 
head  in  the  Kaufmann  Collection. 

As  for  Philip — Philip  the  (anything  but)  Good — in  the  Madrid 
portrait,  he  stands  revealed  for  all  time,  the  crafty  sensualist  with 
the  faun  ears.  Able  and  selfish  he  looks,  and  I suppose  he  was, 
but  likewise  a gentleman  who  had  learned  and  could  practise  an 
art  of  living  and  appearing.  This  portrait  exists  in  numerous 
copies,  but  less  in  number  than  those  of  another  type,  in  which 
he  wears  a black  turban-shaped  hat — a chapperon  bourellee,  of  a 
form  fashionable  in  his  day.^  The  original  of  this  type  is  not  known. 
Winkler  attributes  it  to  Roger.  It  has  also  been  ascribed  to 
John  van  Eyck,  but  none  of  the  copies  suggest  the  intervention 

^ The  picture  is  in  all  material  parts  excellently  preserved.  There  is  a small  flaw 
under  the  jaw  and  the  background  has  been  repainted.  The  remainder  is  untouched. 
It  is  now  (1921),  I believe,  in  the  collection  of  Mr.  Dreicer,  of  New  York. 

2 This  Burgundian  fashion  of  head-covering  was  adopted  in  Italy,  where  the  parts 
of  it  were  named  as  follows  : — There  was  first  a ring-shaped  frame  of  wire  or  other  light 
material.  It  was  called  a mazzocchio,  and  Paolo  Uccello  played  with  it  as  a complicated 
figure  to  draw  in  perspective.  The  mazzocchio  was  covered  with  a piece  of  stuff,  the 
broad  end  of  which  stuck  out  and  was  called  a foggia.  At  the  opposite  side  of  the  head 
a long  piece  of  stuff  was  attached.  It  could  be  used  as  a scarf  and  could  be  taken  off 
and  left  at  home  in  fine  weather.  This  piece  was  called  a becchelto.  The  whole  was  in 
Italian  a capuccio,  in  German  a Sendelmutze.  The  mazzocchio  was  popular  for  men. 
Women  wore  another  sort  of  turban-frame  called  in  Italy  a balzo  ; there  is  an  example 
of  it  on  the  head  of  Ilaria  del  Caretto.  See  Jahrb.  Pr.  Kss.  1915,  p.  13. 


HIS  PORTRAITS 


149 


of  his  matchless  insight,  though  that  may  be  the  fault  of  the 
copyists.  The  version  now  in  Bruges  Gallery  had  for  pendant 
a portrait  of  Miehelle  de  France,  the  wife  he  married  in  1409, 
but  she  died  in  1422,  and  Philip’s  portrait  must  be  later.  Those 
who  attribute  the  original  to  Peter  Christus  have  most  chances  on 
their  side.  It  should,  however,  be  remembered  that  portraits 
of  the  Duke  by  other  artists  are  recorded  : one  done  in  1436  by 
Michel  Estelin,  of  Cambrai,  another  of  about  the  same  date  by 
Hue  de  Boulogne  and  Jean  de  Maisoncelle  ; as  neither  painters 
nor  pietures  are  known  it  behoves  us  to  be  careful  in  attributing 
portraits  of  doubtful  style  to  other  artists.  The  maturest  and 
most  searching  of  all  Roger’s  portraits  was  in  the  Kaufmann 
Collection  ; it  is  of  a good  man,  much  chastened  by  life,  who  has 
attained  experience  and  wisdom  by  suffering.  He  will  endure 
unto  the  end  in  what  he  judges  right.  A valuable  counsellor  he 
might  be,  trustworthy  and  not  deeeitful.  The  suggestion  that 
he  may  have  been  the  Treasurer  Bladelin  of  the  Middelburg  altar- 
piece  is  not  aeeepted. 

At  Antwerp  is  a fine  portrait  of  a Man  with  a Dart,  which 
has  often  been  attributed  to  Roger  or  called  a copy  of  a lost  original 
by  him.  It  seems  to  be  the  work  of  some  Tournay  painter  or  a 
Frenehman,  but  may  here  find  brief  mention.  It  needed  a good 
artist  to  endow  this  person  with  so  obvious  a dignity.  A grim 
man,  if  ever  there  was  one,  a forceful  fighter,  hard,  domineering, 
unsympathetic,  meaning  to  be  master  of  his  fate.  The  painter 
did  well  to  show  him  to  the  waist.  The  broad  treatment  of  the 
costume  and  the  set  of  the  figure  are  in  keeping  with  the  pose 
of  the  head  and  expression  of  the  faee. 

To  sum  up,  Roger,  as  a portrait-painter,  was  the  leading  artist 
of  his  generation.  If  he  lacked  the  massive  intelligence  and 
penetrating  insight  of  John  van  Eyck,  he  possessed  the  power 
of  endowing  his  subjects  with  distinction.  Everyone  knows  how 
Van  Dyck  learned  in  Genoa  and  taught  in  England  how  well- 
bred  people  should  look.  Roger,  to  a less  degree,  performed  a 
similar  function  for  Knights  of  the  Golden  Fleece.  Civilization 
was  a young  plant  in  the  Netherlands  in  the  days  of  Duke  Philip. 
The  big  men  were  still,  like  Elizabethan  statesmen,  little  more 
than  well-clad  and  well-fed  artisans,  sometimes  of  genius.  They 


150 


ROGER  VAN  DER  WEYDEN 


knew  how  to  dress  and  how  to  build.  Roger  showed  some  of 
them  how  they  ought  to  look.  He  gave  them  distinction. 

We  have  noted  in  the  case  of  three  of  Roger’s  portraits  that 
they  appear  to  have  formed  part  of  diptychs.  The  other  half 
of  each  would  probably  have  been  a half-length  Virgin  and  Child. 
Where  are  these  pictures  ? and  did  he  not  paint  others  ? The 
type  of  full-length  standing  Madonna  was  employed  by  Campin, 
as  in  the  Flemalle  wing,  and  Roger  used  it  in  his  Florentine 
picture.  It  is  probable  that  he  made  other  full-lengths  that  have 
been  lost  to  us.  One  such  seems  to  have  been  imitated  about  1511 
by  Goswin  van  der  Weyden,  the  Antwerp  painter  of  the  memorial 
of  the  Donation  of  Calmpthout,  now  at  Berlin.  We  may  possess 
a fragment  of  a full-length  seated  Madonna,  like  the  Virgin  with 
St.  Luke,  in  the  admirable  picture,  now  in  the  Huntingdon  Col- 
lection, New  York,  which  I so  well  remember  when  it  belonged  to 
my  late  worthy  friend  Mr.  Henry  Willett,  one  of  the  most  skilful 
and  fortunate  collectors  of  his  time. 

Critics  find  much  entertainment  in  the  reconstruction  of  lost 
originals,  for  which  the  repeated  copyings  and  imitations  that 
went  forward  in  Netherlands  studios  provide  plentiful  material. 
It  has  been  suggested  that  Roger,  when  in  Italy,  noted  the  growing 
popularity  of  the  sculptured  half-length  Madonna  bas-reliefs, 
then  so  commonly  made  by  the  best  artists  of  Florence,  and  that 
on  his  return  home  he  set  the  fashion  of  similar  paintings,  which 
had  a rapid  success  and  were  so  eagerly  called  for  that  his  followers 
were  soon  busily  employed  in  turning  them  out.  Two  such  half- 
length  Virgins  claim  to  be  originals  : one  is  in  the  Berlin  Museum, 
the  other  was  in  the  Matthys  Collection  (Brussels),  both  of 
about  1460.  They  are  reversed  repetitions  of  one  another  with 
some  variations,  and  the  type  was  frequently  imitated.  Both 
are  themselves  variations  of  the  upper  part  of  the  Virgin  with 
St.  Luke.  So  frequent  is  the  repetition  of  this  type,  especially 
in  the  Bruges  studios  about  the  year  1500,  as  to  lead  to  the 
assumption  that  an  important  original  may  have  existed  in  some 
church  at  Bruges.  I feel  far  from  certain  that  the  guess  is  correct. 
Pattern  cartoons  or  drawings  of  great  finish — such  as  those  above 
described — seem  to  have  been  common  studio  properties  in  those 
days,  and  they  could  supply  material  for  repetition  as  efficiently 


PLATE  V 


J.  UARET.  PANEL  OF  ARRAS  ALTAR  (U34). 
p.  124. 


2.  P.  CIIRISTUS.  ST.  ELOY  (UlR. 
COLL.  LEILMANN.— p.  1C9. 


3.  ROGER  VAN  DER  WEYDEN.  COLL. 
HUNTINGDON.— p.  150. 


4.  ROGl-;P,  VAN  DEPv  \VEYDI:N. 
COLL.  DPvI-;ICER.— p.  148. 


I To  face  I'.age  150. 


HIS  IMITATORS 


151 


as  the  originals  themselves.  Campin’s  original  of  the  Virgin 
with  the  music-making  angels  probably  went  to  Spain.  His 
Marriage  of  the  Virgin  almost  certainly  went  there.  Yet  both 
were  repeated  in  the  Netherlands  again  and  again  in  whole  or 
in  detail.  Moreover,  we  know  that  something  in  the  nature  of 
annual  art-congresses  of  painters  recurred  in  the  Netherlands 
toward  the  end  of  the  fifteenth  century,  at  which  much  may  have 
been  done  in  the  way  of  exchange  of  designs.  Whatever  the  means, 
the  fact  is  that,  henceforward  for  several  decades  and  with  increasing 
frequency,  the  designs,  first  of  Roger  and  presently  of  some  of  his 
followers  and  their  contemporaries,  began  to  be  used  as  patterns 
to  be  repeated  either  exactly  or  with  more  or  less  freedom  by 
painters  of  the  school,  engravers  and  miniaturists  following  suit. 
It  is  hard  to  accept  the  hypothesis  that  a famous  original  of  each 
of  Roger’s  Madonna  types  existed  in  a prominent  position  in 
some  Bruges  or  Brussels  church  where  other  painters  could  copy 
or  imitate  it,  and  that  every  one  of  these  pictures  should  chance 
to  have  been  destroyed  while  so  many  other  pictures  by  him 
have  survived.  Is  it  not  more  likely  that  these  repetitions  of 
types  are  an  example  of  the  way  the  guild  system  and  the  taste 
of  patrons  operated  upon  the  artists  of  that  district  and  day  ? 
When  a patron  ordered  a Madonna  may  he  not  have  chosen  the 
type  from  patterns  in  the  artist’s  possession  ? Patterns  do  not 
necessarily  imply  an  original  picture,  but  only  an  original  design. 
I remember  Mr.  Weale  telling  me  that  he  had  read  contracts  in 
which  a painter  was  thus  tied  down.  From  the  time  when  the 
making  of  pictures  became  a common  industry  in  the  Netherlands 
and  painters  were  rapidly  increasing  in  numbers,  the  practice  of 
copying  and  imitating  flourished.  Originality  was  not  asked 
for  by  patrons  nor  stimulated  by  the  guild  system  and  its  educa- 
tional organization.  When  a pupil  had  worked,  like  Daret,  for 
a dozen  years  under  a single  master,  always  living  in  his  house, 
it  required  an  unusually  strong  nature  to  emerge  with  much 
originality  left.  What  the  guild  system  successfully  produced  was 
sound  and  workmanlike  execution  of  typical  designs.  No  one 
wanted  originality.  There  were  no  crowded  annual  exhibitions  ! 

The  Virgin  of  St.  Luke,  as  already  stated,  became  common 
in  the  half-length  form,  the  best  existing  example  being  in  the 


152 


ROGER  VAN  DER  WEYDEN 


Fogg  Museum  at  Cambridge,  Mass.  Another  type  of  Virgin  and 
Child  whieh  was  even  more  frequently  repeated  far  down  into 
the  sixteenth  century  shows  the  Child  standing  on  His  Mother’s 
knee  and  reaching  up  to  kiss  her.  Winkler  would  attribute  the 
original  to  Roger,  and  gives  a long  list  of  copies. ‘ Reinach  suggests 
that  the  composition  may  go  back  to  Van  Eyck.  Early  examples 
are  the  Hornes  memorial  picture  at  Berlin  (590a),  a picture  that 
was  in  the  Cernuschi  sale  (Paris,  1900,  No.  144),  another  in  the 
Carvalho  Collection  (Paris,  phot.  Giraudon,  1008),  and  a drawing  at 
Dresden.  Other  often  repeated  Madonna-types  thought  to  have 
been  fixed  by  Roger  are  the  Virgin  with  a Flower  and  Winkler’s 
Virgin  holding  the  Child  with  both  hands  ; * and  they  are  not  all. 

I am  tempted  to  add  to  these  recreations  of  Winkler  another 
lost  Roger  Madonna — ^the  Madonna  with  the  Sleeping  Child. 
There  must  have  existed  a particularly  venerated  picture  of  this 
type.  It  is  represented  by  two  existing  paintings  on  silk  or  lawn 
of  about  the  year  1500.  One  from  the  Mercier  Collection  at  Niort 
was  shown  in  the  French  Primitives’  Exhibition  of  1904  (No.  357) ; 
the  other  appeared  in  the  Warren  sale  at  New  York  (1903).  The 
background  was  old  rose-colour  diapered  with  crimson,  the  Child’s 
robe  of  gold  shaded  with  red,  the  Virgin’s  blue  with  red  sleeves 
and  a blue  cloak  edged  with  gold.  These  pictures  do  not  make 
us  think  of  Roger.  They  represent  an  earlier  type  which  he,  in 
turn,  imitated.  All  the  existing  versions  date  from  the  beginning 
of  the  sixteenth  century.  There  are  several  from  the  workshop 
of  the  Brussels  Master  of  the  Magdalen  Legend,  others  by  Joos 
van  Cleve  and  his  assistants,  and  by  the  Parrot  Master.  The 
best  of  these  is  an  excellent  version  by  Joos  van  Cleve,  which  was 
in  the  Odiot  sale  (No.  6,  Paris,  1889).  It  is  scarcely  possible  to  deny 
that  he  painted  it  with  a version  by  Roger  before  him.  The  Virgin’s 
head  is  an  obvious  copy  after  a Roger  original  and  is  almost  identical 
(in  reverse)  with  the  head  of  the  beautiful  Louvre  drawing  (Giraudon, 
418).  In  another  version,  likewise  by  Joos  van  Cleve,  the  Virgin’s 

1 An  example  was  in  the  Grimaldi  sale  (1899,  No.  279),  and  I have  had  for  upwards 
of  thirty  years  a photograph  of  another  which  was  imported  into  Long  Island,  U.S.A., 
early  in  the  nineteenth  century  and  is,  doubtless,  still  in  a private  collection  in  New  York. 

2 Examples  of  this  type  are  in  the  Winthrop  Collection  (New  York)  by  the  Ursula  Master, 
others  at  Brussels  and  Amsterdam,  and  in  the  M.  van  Gelder  Collection  (Uccle),  also  a 
miniature  in  a MS.  (No.  1857)  in  the  Vienna  Library.  See  Winkler’s  FUmalle,  p.  71. 


HIS  DEATH 


153 


head  has  been  entirely  altered,  and  she  has  been  made  to  smile 
or,  rather,  to  grin.  This  picture  is  in  the  Fitzwilliam  Museum 
at  Cambridge.  Another  version  of  the  same  school  was  in  the 
Pablo  Bosch  Collection,  but  the  head  is  again  changed.  A small 
half-length  Madonna,  of  which  a photograph  was  kindly  given  to 
me  by  Messrs.  Dowdeswell,  who  owned  the  early  sixteenth- 
century  original,  also  shows  an  evident  dependence  upon  Roger, 
but  in  this  the  Child  has  opened  His  eyes.  The  Roger  tradition  is 
less  obvious  in  the  Magdalen  Master’s  examples,  but  discoverable 
in  that  in  The  Hague  Collection.  It  is  significant  that  the  type 
should  have  been  popular  in  Brussels.  The  Parrot  Master’s 
version  is  directly  dependent  upon  Joos  van  Cleve’s  type. 

Roger  happened  to  come  at  the  moment  when  circumstances 
and  the  taste  and  growing  wealth  of  a considerable  number  of 
individuals  involved  and  imposed  the  development  of  a certain 
kind  of  painting.  The  day  that  called  for  it  provided  also  the 
guild  system  and  determined  the  character  and  quality  of  its 
output.  It  was  the  chance  of  the  time  of  his  coming  that  raised 
Roger  to  so  high  a position.  He  could  not  have  broken  the  way 
into  a new  world  of  art  as  the  Van  Eycks  did.  His  was  not  a 
creative  or  exploratory  mind.  But  he  could  do  excellent  work 
along  a made  route,  improving,  co-operating,  continuing.  He 
was  an  admirable  craftsman  with  a true  sense  of  style,  well  suited 
to  be  master  at  the  head  of  a growing  school,  solidly  founded  on 
tradition,  and  conservatively  maintained.  It  was  the  goodness 
of  the  work  of  the  Netherlanders,  its  uniform  high  quality,  its 
sound  methods,  its  careful  finish,  its  religious  docility,  that  made 
its  products  so  highly  valued  even  in  Italy.  Roger  fitted  exactly 
into  that  frame.  When  he  died  on  June  16,  1464,  he  left  behind 
him  plenty  of  well-trained  followers  to  hand  on  to  the  next  genera- 
tion the  efficient  instrument  of  art-production  which  he  had  helped 
to  fashion.  The  Municipal  Council  gave  a pension  to  his  widow, 
but  they  appointed  no  painter  in  his  place,  having  many  years 
before  decided  that  he  should  have  no  successor.  One  wonders  why. 

A very  good  pupil  and  follower  of  Roger  was  the  painter  of 
a well-known  and  delightful  picture  in  the  National  Gallery 
(No.  783),  which  is  certainly  one  of  the  most  entertaining  works  of 
the  Netherlands  schools  : I refer  to  the  Exhumation  of  St.  Hubert, 


154 


ROGER  VAN  DER  WEYDEN 


the  eighth  century  Bishop  of  Liege.  For  thirty  years  or  more 
I have  had  among  my  photographs  an  etched  copy  of  a drawing 
of  this  same  composition  which  was  in  the  Weigel  Collection. 
I am  told  that  it  has  lately  been  published  as  the  design  for  our 
painting.  It  is,  however,  only  a sixteenth  century  copy  of  it 
by  a skilful  sketcher  who  noted  down  in  French  the  principal 
colours.  The  picture  shows  us  the  episcopally  robed  body  of  the 
Saint,  raised  from  his  grave  in  front  of  the  high  altar  of  an 
unidentified  church,  amid  a crowded  group  of  onlookers,  many 
of  them  evidently  portrayed  from  the  life.  There  is  a chdsse 
upon  the  altar  intended,  no  doubt,  to  receive  the  relics  of  the 
Saint,  which  it  is  far  too  small  to  hold,  if  the  body  had  been  as 
complete  as  the  painter  makes  it.  It  was  the  proper  thing  to  relate 
that  a Saint’s  body  was  found  intact  and  fresh,  and  so  the  painter 
had  thus  to  depict  it.  The  chdsse  depicted  is  a well-designed 
fifteenth  century  example  and  probably  actually  existed. ^ The 
retable  seems  of  earlier  date.  Over  the  altar  is  the  statue  of 
St.  Peter,  to  whom  the  church  may  have  been  dedicated.  Among 
the  onlookers  is  an  emperor  in  a robe  embroidered  with  the  lilies 
of  France.  He  is  bald-headed.  Can  he  be  intended  to  represent 
Charles  the  Bald  ? We  are  reminded  of  the  well-known  and 
approximately  contemporary  painting  of  the  Mass  of  St.  Giles 
by  a different  artist.  Like  this,  it  shows  a legendary  event  taking 
place  in  fifteenth  century  surroundings  in  the  choir  of  a church, 
which  we  are  fortunately  able  to  identify  as  that  of  the  Abbey 
of  St.  Denis.  There,  as  here,  the  neighbourhood  of  the  altar 
can  be  enclosed  by  curtains  running  on  rods  carried  by  four  metal 
columns  surmounted  by  figures  of  angels.  Such  columns  are  the 
last  surviving  trace  of  the  great  stone  ciboria  by  which  in  earlier 
days  altars  were  wont  to  be  covered,  as  we  may  see  at  St.  Ambrose’s 
Church  in  Milan  and  elsewhere.  At  the  head  and  foot  of  St. 
Hubert’s  grave  is  a mitred  ecclesiastic.  The  one  at  the  foot, 
swinging  a censer,  has  been  thought  to  resemble  the  art-loving 
William  Fillastre,  Abbot  of  St.  Bertin’s  at  St.  Omer  (1450-73) 
and  Bishop  of  Toul,  whose  likeness  is  known  to  us  from  pictures 

1 A chdsse  made  for  the  Chapel  of  St.  Sebastian  at  Nuremberg  and  still  to  be  seen  in 
that  city  comes  nearest  in  type  to  the  chdsse  in  the  picture,  but  is  of  rather  later  date. 
See  Becker  and  von  Hefner- Alteneck,  ii,  pi.  xliv. 


PLATE  VI 


2.  SCHOOL  OF  ROGER.  THE  SFORZA  TRIP- 
TYCH (1459-62).  BRUSSELS.— p.  145. 


. ROGER  V.\N  DER  WEYDEN.  ESCORI.AL. 


I 


-3.  -SCHOOL  OF  ROGER.  .V  S.\INT  .VND  DONOR.  4.  SCHOOL  OF  ROGER.  THE  EXHU3L\TION  OF 
(1451).— p.  155.  .ST.  HUBERT.  N.VFIONAL  GALLliRY.— p.  153. 

\To  lace  page  154. 


THE  ST.  HUBERT  MASTER 


155 


and  manuscripts  attributed  to  Simon  Marmion.  I am  afraid 
the  similarity  is  only  superficial.  Curiously  enough,  the  pieture 
must  have  been  seen  and  remembered  by  Albert  Ouwater,  who 
borrowed  ideas  from  it  away  off  at  Haarlem.  Whoever  the 
painter  may  have  been  he  was  an  admirable  draughtsman  and  comes 
in  several  respeets  very  close  to  Roger.  The  finely  elad  youth 
on  the  right  would  not  have  thus  appeared  had  not  Roger  previously 
painted  that  splendid  upstanding  Moorish  king  in  the  Cologne 
Magi.  We  ean  still  trace  the  Campin  tradition  in  the  grouping  of 
the  onlookers  and  the  way  the  faces  peep  in  between  one  another. 
There  is  a delightful  variety  of  character  and  expression.  Alto- 
gether, one  can  stand  before  the  picture  long  and  often  with 
entertainment  and  pleasure  such  as  more  pretentious  and  famous 
works  fail  to  provide. 

The  same  artist  painted  a Marriage  of  the  Virgin  (in  Antwerp 
Cathedral)  which  possesses  many  of  the  merits  of  the  St.  Hubert, 
though  in  a less  degree.  Reminiseenees  of  Campin  are  there 
also  diseoverable.  Winkler  has  aeceptably  attributed  to  him  an 
important  drawing,  in  the  British  Museum,  of  a religious  pro- 
eession  bearing  the  Viaticum.  Churchmen  m front  are  carrying 
banners  and  singing.  They  have  just  emerged  from  the  gate 
of  a town,  through  which  their  lay  followers  are  still  coming. 
A portion  of  the  drawing  has,  unfortunately,  been  cut  out.  It 
is  claimed  that  the  copy  of  Roger’s  Descent  from  the  Cross,  whieh 
was  in  the  Edelheer  Chapel  of  the  recently  burned  church  of 
St.  Peter  at  Louvain,  was  also  made  by  this  artist.  That  pieture 
is  dated  1443.  The  aseription  to  him  of  a female  portrait  of  fine 
quality  in  the  Heseltine  Colleetion  is  less  eonfidently  asserted. 
It  certainly  bears  considerable  resemblanee  to  two  heads  in  the 
company  present  at  the  Exhumation.  Let  us  hope  that  this 
painter’s  name  may  yet  be  discovered.  He  was  an  artist  of  no 
little  merit. 

A pair  of  wings  of  fine  quality  and  bearing  the  date  1451  were 
for  sale  at  the  Spanish  Gallery  in  London  about  1908.  On  the 
outsides  was  an  Annunciation  painted  against  a red  background 
sewn  with  stars.  The  insides  showed  the  donor  and  his  wife  with 
their  patron-saints,  but  instead  of  the  saints  presenting  their 
proteges,  some  chief  event  in  the  saint’s  legend  is  depicted  on 


156 


ROGER  VAN  DER  WEYDEN 


each.  Thus,  behind  the  donor,  is  the  Crucifixion  of  St.  Peter, 
with  an  elaborate  landscape  background.  In  that,  and  in  the 
landscape  on  the  other  wing,  jutting  rocks  are  introduced  which 
seem  prophetic  of  the  forms  later  delighted  in  by  artists  of  the 
Patinir  School.  The  group  of  onlookers  about  the  Emperor 
includes  models  and  employs  poses  that  bear  more  than  a slight 
resemblance  to  those  presently  characteristic  of  the  Dutch  School, 
but  the  donor’s  portrait  is  in  the  style  formulated  by  Roger,  and 
the  painter  was  evidently  one  of  his  pupils.  The  same  observation 
applies  to  the  portrait  of  the  lady,  who  recalls  no  one  so  much  as 
the  donoress  on  the  Vienna  Crucifixion.  An  angel  in  the  back- 
ground is  more  like  Bouts  than  Roger.  The  name  of  the  lady’s 
saint  remains  a mystery,  though  several  incidents  in  his  career 
are  depicted.  Thus,  far  away  in  the  background,  he  is  seen  beside 
the  bed  of  a man  with  an  angel  kneeling  on  the  floor.  Then  he 
is  just  outside  the  building  with  two  camels  which  men  are  loading. 
Next  he  is  talking  to  another  religious  within  the  doorway  of  a 
church,  and  perhaps  the  lonely  individual  deep  in  thought  leaning 
against  a rock  is  he  also.  Finally,  he  is  kneeling  in  the  foreground 
while  the  angel  holds  his  two  camels  a little  way  behind.  Some- 
body may  be  able  to  fill  in  the  gaps  of  the  story,  but  it  will  make 
no  difference  to  our  appreciation  of  a very  charming  picture, 
which  does  not  depend  for  its  beauty  upon  any  “ meaning.”  A 
curious  coat-of-arms  bearing  only  a large  sword  and  a key  was 
not  interpreted  by  Mr.  Weale,  who  called  attention  to  the  picture.* 
It  may  be  provisionally  ascribed  to  some  unidentified  Dutch  pupil 
of  Roger,  an  artist  of  singular  promise,  perhaps  known  to  us  by 
later  work  in  a more  independent  style. 

In  conclusion,  we  may  briefly  mention  a pair  of  panels,  called 
the  diptych  of  Philip  Hinckaert,  castellan  of  Tervueren,  who  died 
in  1460.  The  pictures,  or  one  of  them,  may  have  been  set  up 
as  his  memorial.  Both,  at  any  rate,  are  by  a single  painter.®’ 
The  Crucifixion  is  a rude  and  painful  work  introducing  figures 

1 Rev.  de  VArt  chret.,  1905,  p.  361.  Sword  and  key  are  the  emblems  of  St.  Paul 
and  St.  Peter,  or  of  the  civil  and  ecclesiastical  powers.  They  can  hardly  be  the  bearings 
of  a layman’s  shield.  A rather  similar  coat-of-arms  is  sculptured  in  the  Lady  Chapel 
at  Winchester  Cathedral.  It  bears  a sword  crossed  with  a pair  of  keys. 

^ Now  in  the  Crews  Collection.  Bruges  Exhibition  (1902),  No.  31. 


HIS  FOLLOWERS 


157 


taken  directly  from  Roger,  but  the  landscape  behind  them 
contains  some  delightful  passages  and  shows  that  the  painter  was 
modern  enough  to  find  more  delight  in  depicting  nature  than  in 
repeating  traditional  designs.  The  other  panel  with  its  interesting 
portrait  of  the  knight  and  its  uninteresting  Virgin  and  Saint 
confirms  this  judgment,  but  the  embroidered  tabard  and  the 
flourishes  and  generally  decorative  treatment  of  the  coats-of-arms 
and  other  devices  prove  the  painter  to  have  retained  a good  deal 
of  mediaeval  love  for  Gothic  decoration,  though  he  patches  it  about 
in  a casual  way,  and  has  lost  understanding  of  the  structural  unity 
by  which  such  decoration  needed  to  be  held  together. 

Note  to  p.  143. — Evidence  against  the  identification  of  the  Uffizi  Entombment  with 
part  of  the  triptych  seen  by  Cyriacus  has  been  adduced  by  Dr.  Warburg,  who  thinks 
that  he  has  found  mention  of  the  former  in  the  inventory  of  the  Villa  Careggi  in  1492. 
The  existing  portrait  of  Lionello,  which  belonged  to  Sir  Edgar  Speyer,  is  now  at  New 
York  in  the  collection  of  Mr.  M.  Friedsam. 


12 


CHAPTER  XII 


DIRK  BOUTS 

At  some  date  before  1440,  Roger  was  ordered  to  paint  that  three- 
panel  Mary  altar-piece  discussed  in  the  previous  chapter.  The 
order  was  probably  given  on  behalf  of  John  II,  King  of 
Castile  (1406-54),  for  whom  also  the  similar  John  altar-piece  may 
likewise  have  been  painted.  Not  much  later  two  other  altar-pieces 
were  ordered  with  which  we  must  now  deal.  One  is  the  large 
triptych  with  life-size  figures  in  the  Chapel  Royal  at  Granada, 
the  Descent  from  the  Cross  being  the  middle  subject,  the  Crucifixion 
and  Resurrection  on  the  wings  ; the  other,  in  the  Prado,  is  a 
well-known  little  triptych  with  the  Annunciation,  Visitation, 
Nativity,  and  Epiphany  in  separate  compartments,  which  was  for 
a long  time  wrongly  ascribed  to  Peter  Christus.  It  is  the  earliest 
example  of  the  four-panel  type  of  triptych — the  usual  large  central 
panel  being  divided  into  two  equal  in  size  to  one  another  and  to 
the  wing  panels — which  is  common  in  the  Brabantine,  especially 
in  the  Brussels  School  down  to  the  end  of  the  first  quarter  of  the 
sixteenth  century.'  In  all  the  above  four  pictures  the  subjects  are 
framed  within  arches  like  portals,  with  carefully  designed  sculptured 
groups  in  the  voussures.  All  were  probably  painted  for  export 
to  Spain,  while  of  three  there  exist  contemporary  copies  or  studio 
replicas.  Two  of  these  four  pictures  are  by  Roger,  the  other  two 
by  someone  else.  The  similarities  of  design  common  to  them 
were,  no  doubt,  due  to  the  commands  of  the  patron  who  himself, 
or  by  some  ecclesiastic  in  whom  he  had  confidence,  prescribed 
the  details. 

The  Granada  triptych  has  not  been  photographed  as  a whole, 
but  there  exists  an  excellent  contemporary  copy  or,  perhaps, 

' The  detached  group  of  six  little  panels  at  Strasbourg  attributed  to  Memling  likewise 
formed  a small  four-panel  triptych,  the  remaining  pair  belonging  to  the  outsides  of  the 
wings. 


158 


BORN  AT  HAARLEM 


159 


replica  of  it  on  a smaller  scale,  which  is  kept  in  the  house  of  the 
Rector  of  the  Collegio  del  Patriarca  at  Valencia,  and  this  has  been 
well  reproduced. ‘ The  originals  of  both  the  Mary  three-panel 
altar-piece  and  the  Descent  triptych  reached  the  Chapel  Royal, 
Granada,  from  the  same  donor,  and  came  from  the  inheritance 
of  the  daughter  of  King  John  II.  A direct  connexion  in  design 
between  these  two  pictures  is  rendered  obvious  by  a moment’s 
inspection.  The  three  arches  of  the  one  and  the  central  arch  of 
the  other  are  round,  and  their  sculptures  are  similarly  arranged. 
The  spandrels  have  triangular  decorations.  There  can  be  no  doubt 
of  the  relation,  nor  that  the  Mary  altar-piece  set  the  type.  That, 
as  we  know,  was  painted  by  Roger  van  der  Weyden.  Who  was 
the  painter  of  the  other  and  of  the  four-panel  triptych  ? The 
reply  can  scarcely  be  longer  doubtful  : he  was  Dirk  Bouts.  Let 
us  pause  a moment  to  define  the  limits  of  our  considerable  ignorance 
concerning  this  man. 

That  he  was  born  at  Haarlem  is  certain,  and  the  date  of  his 
birth  was  probably  the  year  1400.  Molanus,  indeed,  says  that  he 
died  on  the  6th  of  May,  1400,  aged  75,  but  the  1400  is  an  obvious 
misprint  or  miswriting  for  1475,  the  year  in  which  we  know  him 
to  have  died.  The  truth  of  this  statement  about  his  age  is  con- 
firmed by  the  portrait  of  himself  which  he  introduced  into  the 
background  of  the  Last  Supper,  painted  between  1464  and  1468. 
That  is  the  likeness  of  a man  nearer  70  than  60  years  of  age.  His 
parents  must  have  been  decent  people,  because  they  owned  a silver 
goblet  which  he  inherited  from  them  ; and  they  lived  in  a good 
house  where  Dirk  was  born.  Van  Mander,  nearly  two  hundred 
years  later,  could  point  to  it  as  still  standing.  It  had  an  old- 
fashioned  gable-end  decorated  with  medallions  in  relief.  Did 
Bouts  think  of  them  when  he  painted  the  circular  medallions  in 
the  spandrels  of  the  wings  of  the  Granada  triptych  ? 

In  1447  he  married  at  Louvain  Catherine  van  der  Brugghen 
of  that  city,  member  of  a family  nicknamed  Mettengelde  (as  who 
should  say  “ the  golden  ”)  ; thirteen  years  later,  when  her  parents 
were  dead,  she  inherited  a big  house  in  Louvain  and  other  property, 
so  that  Bouts  married  well.  They  had  two  sons,  Dirk  and  Albert, 
and  two  daughters,  who  were  nuns.  Both  sons  were  painters. 

1 Gaz.  d.  Beaux-Arts.,  Oct.  1908. 


160 


DIRK  BOUTS 


Dirk  died  young,  but  Albert  has  left  us  a number  of  second-rate 
pictures  at  which  we  may  glance  later  on.  In  1473,  two  years 
before  his  death,  Bouts  married  a second  wife,  who  likewise  was 
well-to-do.  He  left  her  the  bulk  of  his  property,  but  asked  to 
be  buried  beside  his  first  wife,  from  which  we  may  conclude  what 
we  please. 

The  question  naturally  arises,  where  did  Bouts  learn  his  art  ? 
He  came  to  Louvain  probably  about  1440,  when  he  was  already 
middle-aged.  His  pictures  contain  a strong  element  which  is 
peculiar  to  them  and  to  the  pictures  of  his  followers,  but  is  not 
Flemish  or  Brabantine.  That  he  gained  much  from  contact 
with  Roger  is  obvious,  but  he  did  not  derive  the  stem  of  his  art 
from  him.  The  Roger  element  was  a graft.  We  can  find  analogies 
between  the  style  of  Bouts  and  that  of  Ouwater,  Geertgen,  and 
other  Dutch  painters,  but  what  they  possess  in  common  was  not 
derived  from  Roger.  The  great  Dutch  originator  was  Bouts. 
It  is  true  that  John  van  Eyck  was  employed  by  John  of  Bavaria, 
Count  of  Holland,  to  decorate  his  palace  at  The  Hague,  and  that 
he  worked  there  for  about  two  years  from  October,  1422  ; thus 
it  is  tempting  to  think  that  Bouts  may  have  worked  there  under 
him,  or  that  Van  Eyck  may  have  laid  the  foundations  of  a Dutch 
school  of  painting  in  which  Bouts  grew  up,  but  we  have  no  evidence 
that  such  was  the  case.  Dr.  Vogelsang  ‘ has  brought  together 
examples  of  miniature  paintings  made  in  Holland  at  this  period, 
but  none  of  them  show  the  least  influence  of  the  Van  Eyck  school 
nor  any  likeness  to  the  personal  style  of  Bouts.  The  vaulted 
roof  of  the  Church  of  St.  Walburga  at  Zutphen  is  adorned  with 
a painted  decoration  dating  from  the  first  half  of  the  fifteenth 
century.®  These  are  not  the  earliest  paintings  in  the  church, 
for  some  on  the  walls  must  be  of  the  fourteenth  century,  and  a 
Virgin  and  Child  with  a mounted  knight  tilting  below  her,  may 
even  be  of  late  thirteenth  century  date,  good  and  spirited  work. 
The  vault  paintings  are  the  best  preserved.  They  consist  of  a 

1 Hollandische  Miniaturen,  Strassbiirg,  1899. 

2 Reproductions  in  G.  van  Kalcken,  Peintures  Ecclesiasliques  du  moyen-dge,  Eglise 
Ste.  Walburge  de  Zutphen,  Haarlem,  1914.  The  later  group  of  fifteenth  century  vault 
paintings  are  reproduced  on  plates  9-12  and  41-6.  Plates  25,  26,  29,30,  36-9  may 
depict  works  mainly  of  the  fourteenth  century,  but  the  pictures  are  so  badly  damaged 
that  little  can  be  gathered  from  the  reproductions. 


HIS  ARTISTIC  ORIGIN 


161 


decorative  enrichment  of  the  groining,  with  fanciful  and  elaborate 
flourishes  about  the  intersections,  and  vignettes  in  the  spandrels. 
The  latter  are  either  half-lengths  of  the  Virgin,  Sibyls,  pagan 
Prophets,  and  Evangelists,  or  incidents  in  the  Christian  legend. 
The  half-lengths  emerge  from  formal  clouds  or  flowers,  and  are 
delightfully  and  variously  invented.  The  costumes  are  fan- 
tastical, yet  indicate  plainly  enough  a date  in  the  first  half  of 
the  century.  The  treatment  is  like  that  of  an  enlarged  miniature. 
In  order  that  the  pictures  might  be  effective  at  a distance,  as 
they  are,  the  figures  were  strongly  and  carefully  outlined  and 
comparatively  lightly  shaded.  The  painter  of  the  Sibyls  of  Zutphen 
must  be  reckoned  a praiseworthy  artist,  but  it  is  hard  to  discover 
in  his  work  the  marks  of  a definite  local  style.  Not  from  him 
nor  from  any  other  artist  did  Bouts  derive,  the  elements  of  his 
style.  That  seems  to  have  been  his  own  creation.  He,  there- 
fore, and  no  other  is  to  be  regarded  as  the  founder  of  the  Dutch 
School,  for  which  so  brilliant  a future  was  in  store. 

An  ambitious  young  Dutch  painter,  feeling  his  way  at  any  time 
between  the  years  1420  and  1440,  would  naturally  be  drawn  toward 
the  provinces  of  the  South  Netherlands.  After  1432  the  active 
and  prosperous  studio  of  Roger  van  der  Weyden  at  Brussels 
would  be  the  attractive  centre.  Thither,  apparently,  Dirk  Bouts 
went,  not  as  an  apprentice,  but  as  an  “ improver.”  He  and 
Roger  were  about  of  an  age,  but  Roger  had  had  more  advantages. 
The  simplest  hypothesis  to  explain  all  the  known  circumstances 
assumes  that  Bouts  became  Roger’s  assistant  not  many  years 
after  Roger  had  left  Campin,  that  he  remained  with  him  for  a 
while,  and  that  he  then  set  up  as  an  independent  painter  at 
Brussels  for  a longer  or  shorter  period  before  moving  on  to  settle 
at  Louvain. 

The  elements  of  the  style  which  Bouts  brought  with  him 
from  Haarlem  can  be  most  clearly  distinguished  in  what  is,  perhaps, 
his  earliest  extant  painting — the  four-panel  triptych  at  Madrid. 
Friedlander  has  now  definitely  ascribed  it  to  Bouts,  and  I am 
glad  to  have  his  confirmation  of  an  opinion  I had  already  formed. 
Various  details  connect  it  with  the  Granada  Descent,  the  most 
obvious  being  the  treatment  of  the  voussure-sculptures  and  the 
roundels  in  the  spandrels.  Compare  those  above  the  Madrid 


162 


DIRK  BOUTS 


Annunciation  with  those  above  the  Granada  Descent.  There 
is  no  corresponding  relation  to  Roger’s  sculptured  groups  in  the 
Mary  and  John  three-panel  altar-pieces.  A similar  relation 
holds  between  the  carved  canopies  and  the  Prophets  in  both. 
The  most  striking  divergence  is  in  the  melon-shaped  heads  of  the 
women,  an  awkwardness  of  type  Bouts  had  shaken  off  when  he 
came  to  paint  the  second  picture.  It  is  evident  that  both  were 
painted  in  the  immediate  entourage  of  Roger,  for  the  Madrid 
Visitation  is  identical  in  design  with  that  which  we  have  seen  Roger 
twice  and  Daret  once  employing,  having  themselves  probably 
inherited  it  from  Campin.  The  building  and  the  garden  in  the 
Liitzschena  example  recur  textually  in  the  background  at  Madrid. 

That  Bouts  continued  to  learn  much  from  Roger  is  proved 
by  the  Granada  triptych.  The  Virgin  fainting  at  the  foot  of  the 
Cross  on  the  Crucifixion  wing,  the  other  Virgin  and  St.  John 
by  the  Descent,  the  Magdalen  wringing  her  hands,  the  flying  angels, 
all  come  from  Roger.  The  whole  composition  of  the  Resurrection 
wing  is  borrowed  from  a group  in  the  background  of  one  of 
the  panels  of  his  Mary  altar-piece.  The  Deseent  is  related  both 
to  Campin  and  to  Roger,  but  to  Campin  probably  through  Roger. 
On  the  other  hand,  nothing  could  be  more  emphatically  Dutch 
than  some  of  the  figures  and  types  ; for  instance,  the  man  in  profile 
standing  at  the  foot  of  the  Crucifixion.  The  landscape  also  is  pure 
Bouts.  He  was  far  superior  as  a landscape  painter  to  Roger 
and  all  other  of  his  contemporaries  and  predecessors,  except 
Hubert  van  Eyck.  The  four-panel  triptych  shows  his  landscape 
style  already  developed.  He  must  have  brought  that  with  him 
from  Haarlem. 

With  this  picture  we  cannot  but  group  the  well-known  and 
very  puzzling  Entombment,  painted  in  tempera  on  linen,  which 
is  in  the  National  Gallery.  It  has  been  attributed  to  Roger,  to 
Bouts,  and  finally  to  some  other  nameless  master.  A glance 
shows  that  one  of  the  weeping  Maries,  who  is  wiping  her  eye  with 
part  of  her  white  headdress,  appears  both  in  the  Entombment 
and  on  the  Crucifixion  wing,  though  with  a change  of  gesture. 
Here  the  landscape  is  again  pure  Bouts,  and  a very  beautiful 
landscape  it  is.  On  the  other  hand.  Bouts  at  no  period  of  his 
career  could  have  designed  such  a group  as  this.  He  was  always 


INFLUENCED  BY  ROGER 


163 


a poor  designer  of  groups  of  figures.  He  merely  patches  them 
together  within  the  area  of  his  picture  with  a childish  simplicity 
that  makes  one  smile.  Even  by  the  last  years  of  his  life  he  had 
attained  little  skill  in  this  direction.  But  the  Entombment 
is  one  of  the  best  composed  pictures  in  the  whole  range  of  fifteenth 
century  Netherlands  paintings.  The  designer  must  have  been 
Roger  if  the  painter  was  Bouts.  Roger’s,  too,  are  several  of 
the  types  of  head  ; those,  for  instance,  of  the  two  laymen  and 
that  of  the  Virgin.  Bouts’  Christ-tj^pe  also  differed  from  this. 
Paintings  in  tempera  on  linen  appear  to  have  been  made  in  con- 
siderable numbers  in  the  Netherlands.  Tournay  was  a centre 
of  their  manufacture,  but  had  no  monopoly.  Hugo  van  der  Goes 
painted  many  such.  They  were  largely  exported  to  Italy.  They 
served  as  a cheaper  substitute  for  tapestry,  and  rooms  were  hung 
with  them.  In  the  nature  of  things  few  have  survived.  The 
National  Gallery  example  is  one  of  the  best  existing.  If  the 
small,  jewel-like  panel  pictures  of  the  school  preserve  a certain 
sense  of  spaciousness  and  are  seldom  finical,  it  may  be  because 
painters  were  practised  in  working  on  a bolder  scale  in  the  other 
technique. 

These  three  pictures,  then,  I attribute  to  the  beginning  of 
Bouts’  career  in  Brabant,  and  guess  them  to  have  been  painted 
in  Roger’s  workshop  in  the  late  thirties  or  perhaps  the  early  forties. 
With  them  I would  group  the  Annunciation  at  Petrograd  and  the 
Pieta  in  the  Louvre,  of  which  latter  there  is  a copy  at  Frankfurt. 
The  Magdalen  wears  one  of  those  white  headdresses  which  are 
characteristic  of  the  painter’s  early  period.  The  composition, 
though  not  exactly  borrowed  from  Roger,  was  at  least  suggested 
by  the  same  Mary  altar-piece  to  which  Bouts  was  already  so 
deeply  indebted. 

A Crucifixion  in  the  K.  F.  Museum  (Berlin)  belongs  to 
this  early  period  of  Bouts’  career.  It  is  important  because  all 
along  the  horizon  of  it  there  rise  the  towers  and  gates  of  Brussels, 
making  it  probable  that  the  picture  was  painted  there.  We  can 
identify  the  tower  of  the  Hotel  de  Ville,  the  belfry  of  the  Church 
of  St.  Nicholas,  and  the  great  Porte  de  Hal. 

Two  or  three  portraits  may  be  placed  in  this  early  group.  We 
may  name  the  bust  of  a well-to-do  citizen  which  is  in  the  Warneck 


164 


DIRK  BOUTS 


Collection/  and  another  which,  from  the  Oppenheim  Collection, 
has  passed  into  the  New  York  Museum.  The  latter  is  half  of  a 
diptych,  the  man  portrayed  being  about  45  years  of  age,  approxi- 
mately Bouts’  contemporary.  It  has  been  called  a self-portrait, 
but  doubtfully.  A pair  of  portraits  on  one  panel,  for  sale  in 
London  in  1908,  were  attributed  to  our  artist  by  a writer  in  the 
Monatshefte.  If  they  were  by  him  they  must  have  been  painted 
early  in  his  career. 

By  1447,  whatever  direct  relation  there  may  have  been  between 
Bouts  and  Roger  had  ceased,  and  Bouts  was  well  and  independently 
started  at  Louvain,  where  the  building  of  the  beautiful  town- 
hall  was  just  beginning.  Roger  did  a good  deal  of  work  for,  and 
even  at,  Louvain,  of  which  city  he  had  the  freedom,  but  Brussels 
must  always  have  been  his  headquarters.  The  canny  Bouts 
(for  he  evidently  was  canny — look  at  his  two  well-to-do  wives) — 
the  canny  Bouts,  I say,  was  obviously  wise  to  settle  down  away 
from  the  very  centre  of  his  contemporary’s  activity.  Artists  are 
not  given  to  over-valuing  one  another’s  merits.  It  is  probable 
that  Bouts  thought  himself — he  certainly  was,  in  some  important 
respects — the  artistic  siiperior  of  Roger.  Roger  could  design 
better  compositions,  but  Bouts  could  beat  him  at  painting.  There 
is  a solid  excellence  about  Bouts’  work,  a rich  brilliancy  of  effect, 
a naive,  informal  charm,  owing  nothing  to  guilds  and  schools 
and  borrowings,  which  Roger  could  not  rival.  These  merits  may 
not  have  impressed  the  people  of  that  day  as  they  impress  us. 
Clearly,  Roger  was  the  popular  artist— the  man  to  whom  rich 
patrons  would  go  first.  Bouts  had  nothing  of  the  courtly 
about  his  art,  nor,  to  judge  by  the  face  of  him,  about  his  person. 
He  looks  of  the  burghers  burgherish — middle-class  double-distilled. 
So  he  left  Brussels,  if  that  was  where  he  first  went,  and  settled 
at  Louvain,  and  thereout,  in  process  of  time,  “ sucked  he  no  small 
advantage.”  That  he  prospered  is  as  evident  as  his  nose  on  his 
face.  Of  course,  he  made  money  and,  equally  of  course,  he  saved 
it.  Perhaps  he  had  “ the  fault  of  the  Dutch  ” — an  admirable 
person  none  the  less. 

Paul  Heiland,  earnestly  striving  in  the  year  1902  to  obtain 
his  doctor’s  degree,  constructed  a useful  thesis  on  Bouts.  In  it 

1 Golden  Fleece  Exhibition,  Bruges  (1907),  p.  80  in  the  memorial  illustrated  volume. 


SETTLED  AT  LOUVAIN 


165 


he  tried  to  recreate  the  design  of  a great  lost  polyptych  by  our 
artist,  which  should  have  been  in  some  Cologne  church,  where 
numerous  German  artists  cribbed  from  it.  Two  of  its  inner 
wing  panels  were  the  Munich  Betrayal  and  the  Nuremberg  Resur- 
rection. The  hypothesis  did  not  “ catch  on,”  and  most  people 
are  content  to  accept  those  two  as  the  whole  of  the  interior  faces 
of  the  wings  of  a lost  Crucifixion,  the  outside  faces  being  the 
grisaille  St.  Johns  at  Munich  and  Worlitz.  Whether  the  picture 
was  at  Cologne  or  elsewhere,  certain  it  is  that  these  two  panels 
find  many  an  echo  in  German  art.  After  Roger,  Bouts  was  the 
Netherlands  painter  whose  influence  is  most  evident  in  Germany, 
and  especially  in  the  Cologne  School  of  those  days.  If  we  were 
writing  the  history  of  German  art  this  matter  would  here  demand 
an  attention  which,  as  it  is,  we  are  not  called  to  render. 

We  may  suppose  ourselves  now  to  have  accompanied  Bouts 
past  the  year  1450  ; we  are  approaching  the  days  of  his  artistic 
maturity.  Of  the  two  panels  under  consideration,  the  Nuremberg 
Resurrection  repeats  the  composition  used  on  the  Granada  trip- 
tych with  necessary  changes  involved  by  the  different  shape  of 
the  panel.  The  Munich  Betrayal  is  more  original  and  has  positive 
merits  of  importance.  The  throng  of  folk  is,  of  course,  poorly 
composed,  with  too  little  room  for  the  bodies  under  the  heads, 
but  the  variety  of  facial  types  and  expressions  is  remarkable, 
and  so  is  the  rendering  of  moonlight  in  the  background  and  of 
torchlight  on  the  distant  group  before  the  door  of  Annas.  This 
appreciation  of  light  links  Bouts  with  the  Van  Eycks,  especially 
with  John,  and  is  the  germ  of  that  later  development  out  of  which 
Rembrandt  was  to  arise.  It  is  all  very  rudimentary  here,  but 
Bouts  knew  quite  well  what  he  was  aiming  at.  He  had  posed 
the  problem  which  his  Dutch  followers,  Geertgen  and  Gerard 
David,  were  to  tackle  in  their  turn  and  successive  generations 
after  them. 

' The  grisaille  saints,  once  framed  as  the  backs  of  these  panels, 
were  obviously  turned  over  to  an  assistant,  who  must  have  been 
trained  under  Campin.  The  careful  Heiland  points  out  that  the 
shadows  cast  by  these  stone-coloured  figures  have  a distinctly 
outlined  penumbra,  though  his  optical  explanation  of  it  is  incorrect, 
but  then  he  was  not  asking  for  a degree  in  mathematics  ! Having 


166 


DIRK  BOUTS 


noted  this  fact,  he  proceeded  penumbra-hunting  through  all 
the  pictures  of  the  school,  and  lo  ! only  with  Campin  did  he  find 
penumbras  of  this  kind.  All  other  painters  shade  off  the  edges 
of  their  shadows  or  leave  them  sharp.  It  is  a neat  observation, 
but  leads  to  no  very  useful  conclusion.  If  Bouts  had  used 
penumbras  himself  we  must  have  concluded  that  Campin  had 
taught  him  too,  but  these  grisailles  are  not  by  the  hand  of  Bouts. 

When  our  artist  painted  Lord  Penrhyn’s  picture  of  St.  Luke 
drawing  the  Virgin’s  portrait,  he  must  have  been  at  least  50  years 
of  age,  if,  as  seems  almost  certain,  St.  Luke  is  the  painter’s  own 
portrait.  This  picture  is  not  a repetition  of  Roger’s  composition, 
though  it  is  obviously  a reminiscence  of  it.  Here,  also,  St.  Luke 
makes  his  drawing  in  silver-point.  His  easel  and  painting  things 
are  away  off  in  his  studio,  as  we  can  see  through  the  open  door. 
The  Virgin  is  far  from  beautiful  and  the  Child  decidedly  bandy- 
legged and  awkward  of  gesture,  but  the  picture  is  admirably 
painted,  and  the  landscape  framed  in  the  round-arched  arcading 
is  a real  joy.  A half-length  Madonna  in  the  Antwerp  Gallery 
(No.  28)  has  the  same  bandy-legged  baby  on  the  lap  of  a more 
attractive  mother,  but  here  again  it  is  the  clothes  and  the*  trees 
and  the  colour  of  the  whole  that  we  admire,  by  no  means  the 
figures. 

The  following  half-length  Virgins  are  also  attributed  to  Bouts 
by  Friedlander  : — ■ 

National  Gallery  (Salting  Collection),  No.  2575. 

Berlin  K.F.M.,  No.  727. 

A picture  in  the  Davis  Collection,  Newport,  R.I. 

A replica  in  the  Carrand  Collection,  Bargello,  Florence. 

Frankfurt,  Stadelinst.,  No.  108a  (Pourtales  Sale,  1865). 

A picture  belonging  to  Count  F,  Pourtales,  reproduced 
on  p.  9 of  the  illustrated  volume  on  the  Berlin 
Loan  Exhibition  of  1898. 

The  last  of  these  pictures  is  similar  to  the  Antwerp  example  in 
style  and  obviously  by  the  same  painter.  The  Berlin  and  Salting 
Madonnas  are  likewise  generally  accepted  as  by  Bouts  ; the  former 
is  obviously  suggested  by  Roger’s  Virgin  with  St.  Luke,  but  is  a 
less  close  imitation  than  the  general  run  of  school  repetitions 


HIS  HALF-LENGTH  MADONNAS 


167 


of  that  type.  Bouts  was  never  a slavish  follower  of  a master. 
The  Davis  Madonna  is  superior  to  the  eopy  at  Florence,  which 
cannot  be  an  original.  It  has  been  attributed  to  Hugo  van  der  Goes 
or  to  an  unknown  artist,  but  though  it  presents  some  disquieting 
features  it  comes  nearer  to  Bouts  than  to  any  other  named  painter. 
The  Child  puts  up  His  face  to  kiss  His  Mother  and  passes  His  arm 
round  her  neck.  The  gesture  is  borrowed  from  that  type  of 
Virgin  and  Child  which  Winkler  refers  back  to  a lost  original 
by  Roger.  A beautiful  half-length  in  the  J.  G.  Johnson  Collection 
(No.  341)  by  a follower  of  Roger  almost  repeats  the  same  com- 
position, though  there  the  Virgin  does  the  kissing.  So  does  a 
picture  attributed  to  Memling  in  the  Wernher  Collection  (London), 
while  in  a Gerard  David  belonging  to  M.  Martin  le  Roy  (Paris)  the 
Davis  type  is  almost  repeated  as  far  as  the  heads  are  concerned. 
Two  drawings  in  the  Boymans  Museum  at  Rotterdam  show  female 
heads  with  the  same  peculiar  form  of  nose  which  characterizes 
the  Davis  Virgin.  As  for  the  Madonna  at  Frankfurt,  it  is  hard 
to  think  that  Bouts  had  anything  to  do  with  it.  The  full  and 
suave  forms  of  her  features,  the  character  of  the  drapery — every- 
thing points  to  a pupil  of  Roger  in  very  close  sympathy  with  that 
master.  The  picture  has  also  been  attributed  to  Memling,  but  it 
is  no  nearer  to  him  than  to  Bouts.  It  is  a work  of  the  school  of 
Roger  and  may  have  been  painted  in  his  studio.  But  for  the 
Child  no  one  would  have  thought  of  Bouts  in  connexion  with  it. 

The  National  Gallery  likewise  possesses  a full-length  Virgin 
enthroned  between  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul.  The  Saints  rest  their 
hands  on  the  arms  of  the  throne,  Peter  holding  a book  for  the 
Virgin  to  read  from,  Paul  offering  a flower  to  the  Child.  An 
enthroned  Virgin  with  angels  standing  thus  beside  the  throne 
is  an  ancient  Byzantine  subject,  revived  in  Italy  by  Duccio  and 
Cimabue.  It  is  evident  that  the  type  was  known  and  imitated 
in  the  Netherlands  in  the  days  of  Bouts.  He  himself  must  have 
painted  such  a picture,  for  in  the  Von  Lanna  Collection  at  Prague 
was  a drawing  of  two  angels  copied  from  it.  They  are 
in  the  positions  assumed  by  Peter  and  Paul.  Clearly  the  type 
with  angels  was  the  original  and  this  with  the  two  saints  a later 
variation  of  it.  In  the  Castellaci  Collection  at  Ragusa  is  a Madonna, 
wrongly  attributed  to  Memling,  which  repeats  Bouts’  type  with 


168 


DIRK  BOUTS 


the  angels,  and  there  is  another  by  a Bouts’  follower,  slightly 
more  divergent,  in  the  Chapel  Royal  at  Granada.^  Here,  then, 
at  last,  we  have  a successful  design  by  Bouts — one  that  his  con- 
temporaries and  followers  were  glad  to  repeat.  He  did  not  often 
attain  that  kind  of  popular  success. 

Moses  and  the  Burning  Bush,  brilliantly  painted  on  a picture- 
wing, which  I well  remember  in  the  possession  of  the  late  Henry 
Willett,  found  a worthy  home  in  the  collection  of  my  late  friend 
Mr.  J.  G.  Johnson,  of  Philadelphia.  The  missing  pendant  must 
have  shown  Gideon  and  his  fleece,  for  Albert  Bouts  imitated  the 
pair  at  a later  date.  The  picture  does  not  owe  its  charm  to  the 
drawing  of  the  figures,  which  are  mercifully  hidden  from  view 
within  their  ample  draperies.  Yet  there  is  something  delightful 
about  them,  too — Moses  painted  twice  over,  once  quite  literally 
pulling  off  his  boots  and  seated  on  the  ground  to  accomplish  that 
unromantic  operation  in  the  most  matter-of-fact  fashion.  The 
bush  flames  unconvincingly.  Never  was  a painter  more  literal 
than  Bouts.  There  is  the  bush,  and  there  are  the  flames.  What 
more  can  you  want  ? But  the  delicately  drawn  flowers,  the  details 
of  rock  and  sheep  and  distant  slopes,  the  placing  of  them,  and 
the  true  sense  of  beauty  with  which  they  are  handled,  delight  the 
eye,  by  a witchery  all  the  painter’s  own. 

A pair  of  panels  of  equal  dimensions,  one  in  the  Louvre,  the 
other  at  Lille,  seem  to  belong  together,  as  wings  of  a lost  centre- 
piece. One  wing  depicts  Paradise,  the  other  Hell ; obviously 
a Last  Judgment  must  have  been  between  them.  It  is  tempting 
to  identify  the  altar-piece  with  a Last  Judgment  which  Bouts 
was  ordered  to  paint  by  the  municipal  authorities  of  Louvain  for 
the  Salle  des  li^chevins  in  the  town-hall.  The  order  was  given  on 
May  12,  1468,  and  the  picture  delivered  in  1472.  Unfortunately, 
we  know  that  the  height  of  that  panel  was  six  feet,  whereas  these 
wings  are  only  115  cm.  high,  or  less  than  four  feet.  Moreover, 
though  we  might  readily  enough  assign  the  Hell  wing  to  as  late  a 
date  as  1470,  it  is  difficult  to  carry  the  Heaven  so  far  down.  In- 
deed, this  problem  still  remains  : the  two  panels  do  not  appear 
to  be  contemporaneous.  In  the  Hell  the  nudes  are  admirably 
drawn  and  the  faces  more  passionately  expressive  than  in  any 

^ Reinach,  Repertoire,  i,  182,  gives  the  outline  of  a repetition  of  this. 


HIS  MATURE  WORK 


169 


other  work  by  Bouts,  but  in  the  Heaven  the  drawing  of  the  lightly 
clad  figures  is  poor,  and  four  out  of  the  five  faces  in  the  foreground 
are  depicted  in  profile  for  no  better  reason  than  to  save  the  trouble 
of  foreshortenings.  We  might  escape  the  difficulty  by  ascribing  this 
wing  to  some  assistant,  were  it  not  for  the  beauty  of  the  landscape 
and  the  gorgeous  splendour  of  the  brocade,  jewels,  and  wings 
of  the  angel  who  obligingly  turns  his  back  on  us  that  we  may 
the  better  marvel  at  his  attire.  They  say  at  Lille  that  this  wing 
came  from  the  Abbey  of  Tongerloo,  near  Louvain,  another  reason 
for  not  identifying  the  altar-piece  with  that  made  for  the  Town 
Hall.  It  may  be  claimed  that  resemblances  exist  between  the 
Hell  and  Roger’s  Beaune  altar-piece,  a figure  at  the  extreme  right 
of  the  latter,  for  instance,  being  paralleled  by  one  in  the  former  ; 
but  the  temper  of  the  two  works  is  different.  It  is  hard  to 
believe  that  the  artist,  who  so  stolidly  depicted  the  martyrdom 
of  St.  Erasmus,  a picture  which  Bouts  supplied  before  1464  to  the 
Church  of  St.  Peter  at  Louvain,  can  have  thus  dramatically  conceived 
the  tortures  of  the  damned.  Only  the  fine  drawing  of  the  nudes 
is  common  to  the  two  works,  yet  the  quality  of  surface  is  not 
the  same  ; the  bodies  in  hell  possess  a lithe  grace  which  seems 
inconsistent  with  Bouts’  stolid  ideal.  Can  it  be  that  our  artist 
was  here  helped  by  some  very  brilliant  assistant  whose  identity 
has  yet  to  be  discovered  ? 

Whoever  painted  this  wonderful  Hell  was  likewise  responsible 
for  the  Martyrdom  of  St.  Hippolytus  in  St.  Saviour’s  at  Bruges, 
in  which  the  figure  of  the  martyr  might  have  been  taken  straight 
out  of  the  Louvre  Hell.  Several  critics  have  attempted  to  strike 
this  painting  out  of  the  list  of  the  works  of  Bouts,  but  they  have 
failed  to  convince  those  authorities  who  are  best  worth  convincing. 
Here,  again,  we  have  a larger  proportion  of  profile  faces  than  chance 
would  have  provided  among  eight  people.  The  models,  too, 
are  of  Bouts’  well-recognised  types.  Hippolyte  de  Berthoz  and 
Elizabeth  de  Keverswych  his  wife,  the  kneeling  donors  on  the  left 
wing,  have  obviously  been  painted  in  by  another  artist,  and  very 
beautifully  painted  too.  He  has  had  to  change  the  colour  of 
part  of  the  pre-existing  landscape  to  make  it  harmonize  with  the 
violet  in  the  costume  of  the  donors.  This  new  painter  was  none 
other  than  Hugo  van  der  Goes,  whose  strongly  personal  style 


170 


DIRK  BOUTS 


is  easy  to  recognize.  We  may  account  for  his  intervention  in  two 
ways  : either  the  picture  was  left  unfinished  when  Bouts  died, 
or  the  donors  living  at  Bruges  could  not  conveniently  sit  to  our 
artist  at  Louvain.  The  latter  is  the  more  probable  hypothesis, 
as  the  landscape  was  finished  before  the  introduction  of  the  portraits. 

The  Munich  Magi  triptych,  painted  for  members  of  the  Snoij 
family  of  Malines,  is  best  grouped  with  the  two  preceding  pictures. 
Doubts  have  been  cast  in  its  case  also  on  the  authorship  of  Bouts, 
and  it  must  stand  or  fall  with  the  others.  It  is  either  Bouts  at 
his  best  or  by  a nameless  painter  who  had  learnt  from  him  and  in 
some  respects  surpassed  him.  Whatever  may  be  said  of  the 
middle  panel,  I find  it  difficult  not  to  recognize  the  hand  and  still 
more  the  mind  of  Bouts  in  these  two  wings.  Here  the  figures, 
for  all  their  large  dimensions,  are  subordinate  to  the  wonderful 
landscapes.  That  behind  St.  Christopher,  with  the  rippled  water, 
the  back-stretching  river,  the  red  orb  of  the  setting  sun,  the  atmo- 
spheric perspective,  and  the  brilliantly  dyed  and  illuminated 
heavens,  marks  a stage  in  the  development  of  landscape  painting. 
A generation  later  landscape  and  figure  painters  occasionally  com- 
bined their  efforts  to  produce  a single  picture.  I have  sometimes 
wondered  iwhether  Bouts  may  not  have  introduced  the  custom. 
He  was  remembered  as  a landscape  painter,  the  first  man  to  be 
so  designated.  May  he  not,  in  his  late  years,  have  become  so 
enamoured  of  landscape  painting  as  to  have  devoted  his  chief 
efforts  to  that  branch  of  art,  and  retained  the  services  of  an  able 
assistant,  trained  by  himself,  to  paint  in  the  figures  which  he  had 
designed  ? 

From  March,  1464,  to  February,  1468,  Bouts  was  entirely 
occupied  with  his  masterpiece,  the  Last  Supper,  ordered  by  the 
Confraternity  of  the  Holy  Sacrament  established  in  St.  Peter’s 
Church  at  Louvain.  As  long  as  that  picture  was  on  hand  he  bound 
himself  to  paint  nothing  else,  so  that  all  other  pictures  painted  by 
him  must  have  been  done  before  or  after  those  dates.  As  he  died 
in  1475,  there  were  only  seven  years  left  to  him  after  the  Last  Supper 
was  delivered.  In  those  seven  years  he  painted  the  two  large 
panels  for  the  Town  Hall,  as  well  as  the  lost  Last  Judgment ; 
we  cannot,  therefore,  attribute  to  this  latest  period  the  whole  of 
the  preceding  group.  Yet,  if,  with  Hulin,  we  put  the  St.  Hippolytus 


THE  LAST  SUPPER 


171 


to  the  very  end  of  the  master’s  career,  the  Hell  and  the  Snoij 
triptych  must  go  with  that.  Bouts  could  not  have  done  so  much 
work  in  the  time.  Either,  therefore,  these  pictures  are  largely 
the  work  of  an  assistant,  or  they  belong  to  the  period  before  1464. 
The  former  hypothesis  seems  to  me  the  more  probable.  But  who 
can  the  assistant  have  been,  and  what  happened  to  him  when 
Bouts  died  ? To  these  questions  I can  suggest  no  answer. 

The  probable  date  of  the  Erasmus  triptych  is  1458.  A modern 
inscription  on  the  frame  is  probably  some  workman’s  blundered 
copy  of  an  older  one.  He  has  painted  the  year  thus  : 

MCCCC4XVHI.  If  we  like  to  read  that  1468  we  may  do  so, 
but  the  divergence  in  style  between  this  picture  and  the  Hippolytus 
makes  it  impossible  to  group  them  in  the  same  period  of  one 
artist’s  activity.  To  1462  belongs  the  best  of  Bouts’  portraits, 
a half-length  in  the  National  Gallery,  which  bears  a superficial 
resemblance  to  the  painter  himself,  but  certainly  is  not  of  him. 
It  is  an  amiable  likeness  of  an  honest,  middle-class  individual, 
painted  with  no  little  skill,  and  specially  admirable  in  the  handling 
of  light.  It  illuminates  not  only  the  face  but  the  character. 
Marcantonio  Michiel  seems  to  have  seen  this  picture  in  a house 
at  Venice  and  mistaken  it  for  the  work  of  Roger,  or  perhaps  it 
is  the  learned  commentators  on  Michiel  who  are  mistaken. 

There  is  much  to  be  seen  in,  but  little  that  we  need  stop  to 
say  about,  the  Last  Supper  altar-piece.  Its  wings  were  divided 
between  Munich  and  Berlin,  and  only  the  central  panel  remained 
in  the  church  to  be  rescued  the  other  day  from  the  flames  of  war. 
All  five  panels  are  now  reunited  in  Belgium.  Each  individually 
has  merit,  but  they  were  not  designed  with  any  relation  (save 
of  subject)  to  one  another.  There  is  no  balance  or  rhythm  uniting 
the  compositions,  and  each  gains  by  separation  from  the  rest. 
The  great  central  panel  is  pre-eminent.  The  figures  are  arranged 
with  almost  the  formality  of  a drill-sergeant  about  a square  table. 
Bouts  himself,  as  the  butler,  stands  beside  the  credence.  Another 
portrait — perhaps  of  the  learned  man  who  prescribed  the  subjects 
— stands  behind  Christ,  while  two  youths,  who  may  be  the  artist’s 
sons  or  assistants,  are  seen  through  the  kitchen  hatch.  The  room 
is  airy,  well-lit,  spacious,  and  charmingly  furnished,  drawn  in 
excellent  perspective  (the  tiled  floor  and  beam  ceiling  helping) — 


172 


DIRK  BOUTS 


a most  delectable  late  Gothic  chamber.  As  we  examine  the  panel 
we  receive  a better  sense  of  looking  into  an  enclosed  space  of  a 
certain  depth  than  many  early  Northern  pictures  afford.  There 
is  little  enough  of  sentiment  expressed.  The  figures  are  of  Bouts’ 
well-known  types,  stolid,  and,  for  all  the  gesturing  of  their  hands, 
emotionless.  Yet  it  is  a delightful  picture  to  look  at — so  brightly 
coloured,  so  solidly  painted,  such  careful  work,  visibly  intended 
to  endure,  wrought  to  the  edges  with  the  same  finish  as  in  the 
middle  : about  as  honest  a piece  of  workmanship  as  the  world 
holds.  The  strength  and  the  limitations  of  the  master  are  plainly 
apparent. 

With  this  picture  we  may  leave  the  good  man.  What  he  after- 
wards painted  was  of  less  moment  and  tells  us  nothing  fresh.  There 
are  the  two  panels  at  Brussels  of  the  Justice,  or  rather  Injustice, 
of  Otto  III,  in  which  the  same  limitations  are  observable,  and  more 
evident  because  the  figures  are  on  a larger  scale,  but  if  the  faces 
are  lacking  in  expression  they  attain  a higher  level  in  the  solid 
rendering  of  character  than  in  any  other  of  his  works.  There 
were  to  have  been  two  more  pictures  of  the  series,  but  Bouts 
died  before  he  could  take  them  in  hand,  and  Hugo  van  der  Goes 
was  called  in  to  value  his  unfinished  work.  Friedlander  points 
out  that  only  the  second  picture  was  entirely  finished  ; considerable 
parts  of  the  foreground  figures  of  the  other  had  to  be  completed 
by  a less  skilful  hand  after  Bouts’  death.  One  picture  added 
in  1909  to  the  Berlin  Gallery  must  have  been  among  those  Bouts 
left  incomplete  or  that  were  on  hand  in  his  workshop.  The  land- 
scape and  the  figure  of  Christ  walking  by  the  Jordan  were  alone 
finished.  Not  Hugo  himself  but  some  follower  of  his  painted  in 
the  closely  packed  group  of  John  the  Baptist  pointing  out  the 
Redeemer  to  his  followers.  It  is  not  a great  work.  Indeed,  if 
Bouts’  handiwork  in  any  part  of  it  be  admitted  it  may  be  held  to 
show  that  he  had  already  accomplished  the  best  that  he  was  capable 
of.  His  day  was  done,  and  there  were  others,  several  of  them 
trained  by  himself,  ready  to  take  his  place  and  carry  on  the 
traditions  he  had  done  much  to  strengthen  and  develop. 


CHAPTER  XIII 


HUGO  VAN  DER  GOES 

A MORE  emphatic  contrast  than  that  between  the  temperaments 
of  Dirk  Bouts  and  Hugo  van  der  Goes  could  not  easily  be  cited. 
The  one  canny,  narrow,  painstaking,  industrious,  slow,  definite  in 
aim  and  aiming  only  at  what  he  could  surely  hit ; the  other  bold, 
fiery,  uncertain,  passionate,  aiming  at  large,  striving  for  more 
than  he  could  accomplish,  prolific,  immensely  able,  and  by  nature 
an  artist  to  the  finger-tips.  The  work  of  Bouts  has  endured 
in  wonderful  condition ; that  of  Hugo  has,  for  the  most  part, 
vanished.  The  lesser  man  still  stands  before  us  complete ; the 
greater  is  but  a torso. 

The  origin  of  Hugo  and  his  shaping  are  unrecorded.  From 
his  name  it  has  been  guessed  that  his  family,  himself  perhaps, 
may  have  come  from  Ter  Goes  in  Zeeland  ; but  there  is  no  occasion 
to  go  so  far  afield.  We  know  of  him  as  a man  of  Ghent  only,  and 
the  name  in  his  day  was  not  uncommon  in  Flanders.  As  an  artist 
he  was  Flemish.  As  for  the  genesis  of  his  art  we  can  only  surmise. 
He  is  reputed  to  have  been  a pupil  of  John  van  Eyck,  but  as 
his  birth-year  can  scarcely  be  carried  back  as  far  as  1430,  that 
IS  practically  out  of  the  question.  Such  resemblances  to  and 
reminiscences  of  the  Van  Eycks  as  we  find  in  his  work  are  accounted 
for  by  the  recorded  fact  that  he  was  a great  admirer  of  the  Ghent 
altar-piece,  which  he  had  the  opportunity  of  studying  as  often 
as  he  pleased.  Was  he,  perhaps,  a pupil  of  Roger  ? The  influence 
of  that  master  upon  him  can  be  traced,  but  if  Hugo  had  been  his 
apprentice  we  should  expect  it  to  be  more  prominent.  We  can 
also  observe  in  his  pictures  factors  that  remind  us  of  Robert 
Campin.  The  National  Gallery  (658)  contains  an  admirable  little 
Death  of  the  Virgin,  which  appears  to  stand  about  half-way 
between  Campin  and  Hugo.  There  is  a view  out  of  a window  into 
13  173 


174 


HUGO  VAN  DER  GOES 


a town-square,  such  as  Campin  loved  to  introduce  into  his  back- 
grounds, and  there  are  many  other  Campinesque  features,  but  the 
rugged,  peasant-like  Apostles,  their  cramped  attitudes,  their 
expressions,  the  heavenly  apparition  over  the  Virgin’s  head — these 
elements  and  many  more  suggest  a close  relation  with  the  picture 
of  the  same  subject  painted  by  Hugo  in  his  middle  period.  No 
question  can  arise  as  to  the  relative  date  of  the  two.  The  National 
Gallery  version  is  the  earlier  by  more  than  a decade.  It  was  an 
admired  picture,  for  two  other  versions  of  it  have  survived  (Berlin 
K.F.M.,  528b,  and  Prague,  No.  501).  I imagine  the  London 
example  to  be  or  to  represent  an  early  work  by  our  artist. 

Hugo’s  style  also  occasionally  manifests  the  influence  of  Bouts, 
but  not  strongly  nor  more  than  such  knowledge  of  his  work  as 
we  know  him  to  have  possessed  would  account  for.  The  simplest 
hypothesis  seems  to  be  that  he  was  born,  brought  up,  and  educated 
in  Ghent,  as,  in  fact,  a contemporary  entry  in  the  Louvain  archives 
expressly  states  ; ^ yet  there  are  difficulties  in  the  way  of  that 
solution.  It  is  clear  that  he  and  Justus  of  Ghent  came  out  of  the 
same  school,  and  Justus  became  a master  in  the  Antwerp  Guild 
in  1460.  Guicciardini,  a respectable  authority,  affiliates  Hugo  also 
to  that  city.  Justus  moved  over  to  Ghent  in  1464  and  purchased 
the  freedom  of  the  guild  there.  Hugo  did  the  same  in  1467,  and 
Justus  was  one  of  his  sureties  ; this  does  not  confirm,  though  it 
does  not  necessarily  refute,  the  hypothesis  that  Hugo  was  a Ghent 
man.  Though  he  became  a master  in  the  Ghent  guild  in  1467, 
he  was  already  living  and  working  there  in  1465,  perhaps  in  the 
studio  of  Justus.  Not  being  free  of  the  local  guild,  he  could  not 
have  been  in  business  on  his  own  account.  It  is  all  very  con- 
fusing, and  we  can  only  look  to  the  future  to  extricate  us  from 
this  maze  of  uncertainties.  They  would  not  disturb  us  in  the  case 
of  a lesser  man,  but  Hugo  van  der  Goes  was  a very  great  artist 
who  ranks  with  the  Van  Eycks,  Quentin  Massys,  and  Peter  Bruegel 
among  the  giants  of  the  early  Netherlands  school.  It  is  therefore 
important  to  understand  the  origins  of  his  art. 

The  prolific  and  independent  period  of  Hugo’s  career  lies 
between  1467  and  the  time  when  he  went  mad  in  1481.  The 
output  of  those  fourteen  years  was  large.  He  not  only  painted 
^ See  Crowe  & Cavalcaselle,  chap.  vi. 


HIS  EARLY  WORKS 


175 


the  works  which  have  come  down  to  us,  several  of  them  on  an 
unusually  big  scale  for  Netherlands  pictures,  but  he  made  wall- 
paintings  and  decorative  pictures  in  tempera  on  linen  whereof 
the  barest  remnants  survive.  He  was  the  only  Flemish  artist 
whose  imagination  demanded  that  he  should  paint  on  a large 
scale.  He  would  not  have  needed  to  split  up  the  Ghent  altar- 
piece  into  a dozen  panels  and  eight  several  compositions  ; he  would 
have  enjoyed  covering  the  whole  surface  with  a single  subject. 
Could  he  have  spread  himself  over  the  walls  of  Italy,  his  powers 
would  have  attained  a fuller  development.  Under  his  circum- 
stances of  place  and  day,  even  the  large  panels  he  was  ultimately 
enabled  to  employ  were  at  first  denied  to  him,  and  he  had  to  begin, 
like  his  fellows,  painting  little  pictures. 

The  reader  must  bear  in  mind  that  no  two  critics  agree  in 
arranging  this  artist’s  extant  work  in  the  same  chronological 
order.'  Even  the  three  great  pictures  are  transposed  anew  by 
almost  every  writer,  and  the  Berlin  critics  who  have  two  of  them 
always  under  their  eyes  cannot  agree  which  to  place  before  the 
other.  Moreover,  the  most  trustworthy  and  experienced  of  them 
change  their  minds  on  the  chronological  question.  Thus  Dr.  Fried- 
lander,  whose  competence  everyone  admits  and  whose  conclusions 
are  accepted  in  nine  cases  out  of  ten,  counted  the  Liechtenstein 
Magi  among  the  works  of  Hugo’s  early  period  in  1903,  grouping 
it  with  the  Vienna  diptych,  but  in  1916  he  emphatically  states 
that  he  does  not  consider  it  early,  and  that  it  is  separated  from 
the  Vienna  diptych  by  a wide  divergence  of  style. 

Everyone  admits  the  immaturity  of  a small  half-length  Madonna 
at  Frankfurt  (No.  Ill),  in  a carved  heraldic  frame  with  wings 
added  by  an  inferior  painter.^  The  hatched  gold  background 
was  a Brabantine  feature.  The  little  work  is  full  of  promise  and 
an  unusual  vigour,  expressed  in  the  detailed  observation  of  the 
Virgin’s  hands  and  the  activity  and  intelligence  of  the  Child, 
but  the  group  seems  hemmed  in  rather  than  decorated  by  the 
frame.  The  Vienna  diptych  (283)  with  the  Fall  on  one  wing, 
the  Deposition  on  the  other,  and  St.  Genevieve  outside,  shows 

' See  H.  Sander  in  Repertorium,  1912,  Heft  vi. 

^ The  portraits  on  them  are  of  William  van  Overbeke  and  his  wife,  who  were  married 
in  1478. 


176 


HUGO  VAN  DER  GOES 


a rapid  advance.  Our  ugly  first  parents  with  their  underbred 
figures  and  awkward  extremities  are  easily  forgiven  for  the  sake 
of  the  rest.  Goes  troubled  little  about  formal  beauty  at  this  time, 
preferring  details  on  which  his  incisive  touch  could  fasten 
and  outlines  that  were  emphatic.  The  temptress,  a kind  of  brilliant 
lizard  with  a woman’s  head,  is  the  most  attractive  of  the  group, 
for  all  her  devilry.  An  ensnarer  of  like  type  appears  in  a fifteenth 
century  French  manuscript  in  the  British  Museum  (Add.  15248). 
Where  did  Hugo  find  an  original  for  the  elaborately  drawn  orange- 
tree  in  front  ? It  is  not  copied  from  the  Adoration  of  the  Lamb, 
but  may  have  been  suggested  by  it.  The  flowers  in  the  foreground 
were  studied  from  nature.  In  the  Deposition  he  has  allowed  him- 
self some  dependence  on  Roger  for  types,  but  designed  the  whole 
freely  and  freshly.  A common  emotion  links  the  figures  together 
and  dictates  forms,  gestures,  and  expressions,  but  they  had  to 
be  very  carefully  wrought  out ; he  was  not  yet  able  to  fling 
his  passionate  figures  forth  from  the  white  heat  of  his  ereative 
imagination,  but  the  promise  of  that  exuberance  is  here  apparent. 

To  the  same  early  period  I would  ascribe  two  pictures  marked 
by  a symmetry  of  design  which  does  not  recur  later  on.  The 
first  is  Lord  Pembroke’s  Nativity,  where  the  Child  lies  in  such 
a square  stone  manger  as  is  common  in  Dutch  pictures  of  the 
subject.  The  two  peasants  whose  heads  are  prominent  on  the 
left  are  far  from  presenting  that  strong  and  sympathetic  charac- 
terization with  which  Hugo  was  to  endow  their  fellows  in  later 
works.  A painful  care  in  composition  is  here  also  evident  and 
less  prominently  marks  the  Adoration  of  the  Magi,  known  to  us 
by  eopies  at  Bath  and  in  the  collection  of  Senor  de  Osma  at  Madrid 
(sold  in  1919).  All  the  foregoing  are  immature  works.  We  can 
trace  the  artist’s  endeavours  to  find  his  way  into  a new  world  of 
art  not  opened  by  his  predecessors.  Till  this  stage  was  passed 
he  had  not  reached  his  own  country,  but  was  working  toward  it. 
I imagine  that  all  these  pictures  may  be  assigned  to  a date  before 
1467.  In  that  year  he  not  only  became  a master-painter  at  Ghent, 
but  was  employed  as  director  of  the  deeorations  there  for  the 
aceession-fete  of  Charles  the  Rash — surely  a position  of  unusual 
importance  to  be  held  by  a newly  graduated  master  unless  he 
had  reached  maturity  elsewhere.  Possibly  he  took  out  his  master- 


PAINTINGS  ON  LINEN 


17T 


ship  in  the  local  guild  in  order  that  he  might  fulfil  this  function. 
He  was  similarly  employed  at  Bruges,  though  as  subordinate  to 
Daniel  de  Rycke,  to  paint  street  decorations  for  the  fetes  of  the 
marriage  of  the  Duke  to  Margaret  of  York  in  1468.  Indeed,  it 
was  as  a painter  of  decorative  linen  sheets  that  he  seems  to  have 
come  to  the  front  and,  perhaps,  attained  his  first  repute  in  Bruges. 
We  have  already  referred  to  works  of  this  character.  Their  large 
scale,  the  opportunity  for  bold  design  they  would  afford,  the  speed 
with  which  they  must  necessarily  have  been  painted  if  they  were 
to  be  cheap,  these  and  the  like  conditions  would  have  rendered  the 
making  of  them  a pleasant  task  for  Hugo.  In  work  of  this  kind 
and  possibly  in  designs  for  tapestries  ^ and  glass  windows  the  large 
style  of  his  mature  period  took  its  origin. 

One  picture  exists  done  by  him  in  tempera  on  linen.  It 
belongs  to  a rather  later  period  of  his  career,  and  so,  perhaps, 
does  a fragment  at  Christ  Church,  Oxford,  bearing  the  heads  of 
the  Virgin  and  St.  John,  all  maybe  that  remains  of  a famous  Descent 
from  the  Cross,  the  design  of  which  is  generally  attributed  to  him. 
The  whole  composition  is  preserved  in  a drawing  and  several 
painted  copies,  two  in  Bruges,  two  in  Ghent,  and  others  scattered 
over  Europe  as  far  away  as  Naples  and  Lisbon.  Van  Mander 
highly  praises  a window  in  St.  James’s  Church,  Ghent,  containing 
the  same  subject  from  a design  by  Hugo. 

A large  drawing  at  Christ  Church,  Oxford,  is  either  a design 
for  or  a copy  of  a decorative  painted  linen  by  him.  It  relates 
an  incident  in  the  story  of  Jacob  and  Rachel.  The  somewhat 
stiff  and  formal  lines  of  the  composition  would  not  be  unsuitable 
either  for  a large  wall-painting  or  for  the  decoration  of  a linen 
sheet.  To  a similar  class  belonged  the  overmantel  painting  which 
decorated  a room  in  the  house  of  James  Weytens.  Lucas  de  Heere 
wrote  a sonnet  in  its  honour,  and  Van  Mander  described  it  as  existing 
in  his  day.  That,  however,  was  painted  in  oils.  The  original 
has  disappeared,  but  copies  exist,  the  best  being  in  the  Museum 

^ Tapestries  of  the  Annunciation  and  the  Magi  in  the  Gobelins  Museum  at  Paris  are 
claimed  as  Brussels  weavings  from  designs  by  Hugo,  and  with  them  Destree  associates 
the  Magi  Antependium  in  the  Cathedral  Treasury  at  Sens,  presented  by  Cardinal  Charles 
de  Bourbon.  All  three  seem  to  me  to  have  been  designed  by  artists  of  the  school  of 
Roger,  influenced  to  some  degree  by  Goes.  See  J.  Destree,  Exposition  d'Art  ancien 
Bruxellois  in  the  Jubile  national  de  1905. 


178 


HUGO  VAN  DER  GOES 


of  Decorative  Art  at  Brussels.  The  subject  is  the  meeting  of  David 
and  Abigail.  It  is  recorded  that  one  of  the  ladies  in  the  picture 
was  the  daughter  of  the  house  to  whom  the  painter  was  at  that 
time  paying  his  court.  The  background  groups  remind  us  of 
others  in  the  Adoration  of  the  Lamb,  but  the  picture  lacks  the 
fairyland  atmosphere  of  that  work.  It  introduces  us  to  a world 
of  actuality  and  fine  women  splendidly  attired. 

The  precious  little  triptych  in  the  Liechtenstein  Collection 
which  depicts  the  Adoration  of  the  Magi  composes  the  figures 
according  to  a new  and  obviously  artificial  formula.  Everyone 
notices  the  pyramidal  structure  of  the  central  group,  but  no  one 
has  yet  discovered  whence  Hugo  borrowed  the  scheme  which  was 
more  commonly  employed  thus  formally  in  Italy  than  in  the  North. 
Some  influence  from  Bouts  appears  in  the  figure  of  the  second  king 
on  the  left,  which  might  almost  have  been  drawn  by  him.  The 
peasants  looking  in  through  a window  link  themselves  to  those 
in  Lord  Pembroke’s  picture  rather  than  to  the  notable  originals 
that  everyone  remembers  who  has  once  beheld  the  Portinari 
altar-piece  at  Florence.  We  are,  fortunately,  able  to  indicate 
the  date  of  this  little  triptych  by  the  evident  approximate  contem- 
poraneity of  the  portrait  on  its  right  wing  and  that  of  the  donor 
on  one  of  the  wings  at  Holyrood.  The  latter  is  probably  rather 
the  later  of  the  two,  but  only  by  a little.  Its  date  can  be  .fixed 
with  reasonable  security.  The  Holyrood  wings  were  the  shutters 
of  the  altar-piece  of  the  Collegiate  Church  of  the  Holy  Trinity 
at  Edinburgh,  and  must  have  been  painted  no  later  than  the  year 
1472.  Sir  Edward  Boncle,  Provost  of  Trinity  College,  dedicated 
the  altar-piece  and  doubtless  ordered  it  when  on  a visit  to  his 
brother  Alexander,  who  was  one  of  the  leading  Scottish  merchants 
settled  in  Bruges.  Hugo  was  thus  able  to  paint  his  portrait  from 
life.  He  is  kneeling  in  front  of  an  organ  which  two  angels  are 
playing.  This  may  represent  the  organ  toward  the  cost  of  which 
King  James  III  in  1466  had  contributed  £10.  Provost  Boncle 
is  in  the  very  same  position  and  costume  as  the  donor  upon  the 
wing  of  the  Liechtenstein  triptych,  but  the  Scotsman’s  drapery 
is  a little  better  and  more  freely  handled.  On  the  insides  of  the 
wings  are  royal  portraits — James  III  protected  by  St.  Andrew, 
the  same  model  as  St.  Thomas  in  the  Portinari  picture,  and  a head 


PLATE  VII 


2.  D.  BOUTS.  HELL.  THE  LOUVRE, 

p.  1G8. 


.3.  HUGO  V.\X  DER  GOES.  X.VTIVITY.  I.  HUGO  V.VX  HER  GOES.  SHIED. 

WILTOX  HOUSE.— p.  176.  BOXCLE.  HOLYROOD.— p.  178. 

I To  iacc  page  178. 


THE  HOLYROOD  WINGS 


179 


on  the  left  of  the  Berlin  Nativity ; behind  him  his  brother  Alexander, 
the  heir  apparent ; on  the  opposite  wing  Queen  Margaret,  daughter 
of  Christian  I of  Denmark,  protected  by  St.  Canute.  The  saints 
and  backgrounds  were  the  work  of  Hugo,  but  the  royal  portraits 
of  some  less  skilful  artist  who  will  have  added  them  in  Edinburgh. 
The  fourth  side  of  these  wings  bears  the  Trinity  on  “ the  Throne 
of  Grace.”  The  composition  was  obviously  derived  from  the  type 
set  by  Campin  and  frequently  repeated  by  his  followers. ^ The 
donor’s  panel  is  finest  of  the  four  and  is  a noble  work,  dignified 
in  composition,  and  setting  forth  in  monumental  fashion  the  distin- 
guished presence  of  the  strong  and  capable  Provost.  Plugo  thought 
of  Van  Eyck’s  St.  Cecilia  when  he  was  painting  the  angel  at  the 
organ,  but  he  lifted  her  left  hand  from  the  keys  and  laid  it  on 
the  donor’s  shoulder.  A hymn  to  the  Trinity  is  inscribed  on  the 
open  pages  of  the  music-book.  Friedlander  supposes  that  the 
young  prince  behind  the  king  is  his  son,  the  future  James  IV, 
but  he  was  only  eight  years  old  when  Hugo  went  mad,  and  by  no 
possibility  can  the  wings  be  dated  after  1478,  at  which  time  the 
boy  was  only  six  years  old.  But  the  kneeling  prince  can  scarcely 
be  less  than  sixteen  and  must,  therefore,  represent  not  the  king’s 
son,  but  his  brother  Alexander,  Duke  of  Albany,  who  up  to  1472 
was  heir-presumptive.  That,  therefore,  is  the  latest  possible 
date  for  this  painting.  Indeed,  when  we  remember  that  the 
royal  portraits  were  obviously  added  in  Scotland  and  were  no 
part  of  Hugo’s  work,  an  interval  of  time  amounting  to  a year 
may  be  added,  and  we  may  safely  conclude  that  the  panels  left 
our  artist’s  hands  no  later  than  1471.  The  Liechtenstein  triptych 
may  be  thrown  back  to  1470  as  about  its  latest  probable  date. 

I make  bold  to  introduce  and  group  together  as  painted  by 
our  master  about  this  time,  that  is  to  say,  1471-3,  two  pictures 
evidently  of  about  the  same  date,  whereof  one  is  usually  ascribed 
to  the  last  year  of  Hugo’s  activity.  Let  us  first  dispose  of  the  less 
important.  It  is  a diptych,  or,  at  least,  a pair  of  companion 
pictures,  painted  in  tempera  on  linen.  The  subject  of  one  is  a 
Descent  from  the  Cross,  of  the  other  a group  of  mourners.  The 
latter  still  exists  in  a damaged  condition  at  Berlin.  The  former 

^ Examples  may  be  cited  in  the  Louvain  Museum,  the  Hermitage,  S.  Alessandro 
at  Bergamo,  and  on  the  Berne  Museum  vestments. 


180 


HUGO  VAN  DER  GOES 


is  represented  by  a version  at  Altenburg,  said  to  be  a copy  in 
tempera  on  linen,  and  by  another  copy  on  panel  in  the  Bargello 
at  Florence.  Imitations  of  both  were  made  at  later  dates,  and  the 
originals  must  have  had  a certain  prestige,  or  the  designs  been 
kept  as  useful  patterns  in  some  Netherlands  workshops.  Tempera 
paintings  of  religious  subjects  on  linen  were  commonly  made  for 
export,  being  light  and  easy  to  carry. 

The  Deposition  sheet  is  connected  with  the  more  important 
picture  we  next  have  to  consider  by  the  facial  type  and  treatment 
of  the  head  of  a bearded  man  behind  the  dead  Christ.  The  same 
head  might  have  been  employed  unchanged  for  an  Apostle  in  the 
other  picture,  which  depicts  the  Death  of  the  Virgin,  a large  painting 
on  panel  now  in  the  town-gallery  of  Bruges,  which  Hugo  painted 
for  the  Abbey  of  the  Dunes.  This  has  generally  been  considered 
the  latest  of  his  extant  works,  an  assumption  which  has  brought 
confusion  into  the  deduced  sequence  of  them.  The  reader  should 
observe  that  Martin  Schongauer  in  his  engraving  of  the  same 
subject  shows  knowledge  of  Hugo’s  composition,  and  that  Schon- 
gauer’s  engraving  was  copied  by  Wenzel  von  Olmiitz  in  1481.  An 
interval  of  nearer  ten  years  than  two  is  likely  to  have  separated 
the  original  painting  from  the  engraving  at  second-hand.  For 
these  reasons  I venture  to  place  the  Bruges  Death  of  the  Virgin 
about  the  year  1472  rather  than  1479,  where  previous  writers  have 
located  it.  Hugo’s  vigour  here  found  a completer  expression 
than  in  any  of  his  earlier  works.  He  has  passed  out  of  the  area 
of  precedent  and  tradition  and  taken  an  independent  standpoint 
of  his  own.  The  bed  is  not  beheld  sideways  as  in  the  National 
Gallery  picture,  but  end-on ; technical  difficulties  of  drawing  and 
foreshortening  are  thus  increased,  but  triumphed  over.  The  change 
brings  the  hovering  Christ  into  a central  position  over  the  Virgin’s 
head,  but  that  heavenly  vision  adds  nothing  to  the  power  of 
the  imagined  event.  Hugo  had  to  bring  it  in  ; he  did  not  introduce 
it  by  choice.  It  is  evident  that  only  the  human  beings  in  the 
room  below  were  generated  by  a true  creative  force  within  him  ; 
the  others  were  constructed,  not  born.  Every  face  and  figure  of 
an  Apostle  had  lived  in  the  artist’s  imagination  before  it  appeared 
on  his  panel.  Hence  the  vividness  of  their  vitality.  The  figures 
fit  together  like  old  friends  accustomed  to  one  another’s  company. 


THE  DEATH  OF  THE  VIRGIN 


181 


The  affection  that  unites  them  is  obvious.  The  spectator’s 
sympathy  goes  out  to  them  willingly.  Just  so  we  can  believe 
such  a group  might  have  behaved  and  looked.  If  only  the  figure 
of  Christ  had  been  omitted  we  should  be  better  pleased.  Below 
all  is  fact  and  Hugo’s  realm ; above  is  fancy,  and  of  that 
he  had  no  gift.  But  the  eye  is  held  by  the  living  people.  It 
wanders  satisfied  and  interested  from  face  to  face.  We  ask  no 
questions  and  make  no  criticisms.  All  that  is  upon  the  earth 
is  wholly  credible  in  this  picture,  and  it  suffices.  Hugo  from  the 
first  had  delighted  in  the  study  of  hands  and  found  in  them  as 
much  character  as  in  heads  ; here  he  surpassed  all  his  previous 
efforts  and  made  the  hands  powerfully  expressive.  The  general 
effect  of  the  whole  picture  is  one  of  force.  The  types  are  peasant- 
like and  rugged  with  features  lined  and  strained  for  mere  delight 
in  their  ruggedness.  The  painter  must  have  been  passing  through 
some  stage  of  high  exultation  when  he  thus  painted,  thus  conceived. 
The  result  is  not  great  art,  but  it  is  the  raw  material  out  of  which 
by  the  toil  and  discipline  of  life  great  art  may  presently  arise. 
Regarded  as  an  immature  transitional  work  of  a tempestuously 
developing  artist,  the  picture  finds  a logical  position  at  this 
moment  of  Hugo’s  career,  but  placed  at  the  end  of  it  would 
be  incongruous. 

We  thus,  in  the  course  of  an  orderly  evolution,  arrive  at  the 
first  and  best  known  of  his  great  pictures — the  Portinari  triptych, 
now  in  the  Uffizi  at  Florence,  whither  in  our  own  day  it  has  been 
removed  from  that  hospital  of  Santa  Maria  Nuova  in  which  its 
donor  placed  it.  It  is  one  of  the  largest  Flemish  pictures  extant. 
An  artist  of  Hugo’s  fiery  nature  probably  painted  fast,  but  the 
method  of  the  Van  Eycks  which  he  employed  could  not  be  rushed. 
So  big  a picture  would  fill  the  working  hours  of  not  less  than  three 
years.  The  apparent  ages  of  the  donor’s  children,  whose  birth- 
dates  are  known,  enable  us  to  estimate  that  the  wings,  which 
would  be  finished  last,  were  painted  about  1475.  In  that  year 
Hugo  laid  down  his  office  of  dean  of  the  painters’  guild  and  retired 
into  the  Augustinian  Roode-Clooster,  near  Brussels.  We  may 
guess  that  he  delivered  the  altar-piece  before  taking  that  step. 
It  is  the  only  picture  authentically  recorded  as  his  work,  and  by 
universal  assent  it  is  regarded  as  one  of  the  finest  produets  of 


182 


HUGO  VAN  DER  GOES 


Netherlands  art.  Probably  no  other  artist  of  the  school  could 
have  painted  on  so  large  a scale  with  success.  The  local  method 
was  to  divide  the  area  of  a big  picture  into  parts  and  make  each 
a separate  painting.  Hugo’s  practice  with  decorative  linens 
made  it  pleasurable  to  him  to  work  on  this  life-size  scale.  The 
central  panel  contains  the  Nativity.  The  Virgin  kneels  before 
the  new-born  Babe,  on  whom  the  chief  light  falls,  not  from  it 
proceeding  as  commonly  but  erroneously  stated.  Joseph,  having 
kicked  off  his  sandals,  adores  from  a remoter  position.  Angels 
with  richly  coloured  wings  and  robes  kneel  around  or  hover  in 
the  air  like  gathering  birds.  From  one  side  the  shepherds  are  just 
approaching,  their  faces  full  of  wonder  and  delight.  Portinari 
and  his  two  boys  on  the  left  wing  are  under  the  protection  of 
St.  Anthony  and  St.  Thomas.  His  wife  and  daughters  with  their 
patron  saints,  Magdalen  and  Margaret,  occupy  the  other  wing. 
The  influence  of  Van  Eyck  may  be  traced,  but  little  of  Roger  ; 
a small  angel  or  two  in  the  background  alone  recall  him. 

Hugo  was  not  by  nature  mystical  or  religious.  His  work  seems 
to  imply  a love  of  good  cheer  and  the  joys  of  life.  His  youth 
is  likely  to  have  been  stormy,  his  temperament  too  tempestuous 
for  his  will.  Perhaps  he  fled  into  the  convent  for  protection 
which  he  could  not  provide  for  himself.  The  realism  of  the  work 
tells  its  own  tale  ; even  John  van  Eyck  and  later  Peter  Bruegel 
were  not  at  heart  more  realist  than  he.  The  heads  in  the  picture 
are  vigorous  portraits.  Portinari  is  displayed  as  a man  of  position 
and  refinement.  The  boys,  quelled  into  quietness  for  the  moment, 
are  potential  of  mischief.  Equally  well  realized  are  the  lady  and 
her  little  girl.  They  and  their  saints  are  painted  with  a delicate 
and  reverential  hand.  The  Magdalen  is,  perhaps,  the  finest  full- 
length  figure  of  a woman  drawn  in  the  Netherlands  in  those  days. 
Not  here,  however,  was  the  painter’s  interest  most  keenly  concen- 
trated, but  in  the  shaggy  male  saints  and  the  shepherds  ; for  them 
he  found  acceptable  models  in  the  peasantry  of  the  countryside. 
They  live  before  us  on  this  panel,  no  ideal  Corydons,  but  the  very 
men  themselves,  fresh  from  the  fields  and  villages  of  the  neighbour- 
hood. Their  horny  hands,  rude  features,  and  awkward  gestures 
guarantee  their  genuineness.  Obviously,  they  had  not  been  sought 
for  this  one  occasion.  Hugo  must  have  studied  such  folk  long  and 


THE  PORTINARI  TRIPTYCH 


183 


often  in  their  homes,  and  familiarized  himself  with  their  lives  and 
ways  by  careful  observation,  as  Peter  Bruegel  did  three-quarters 
of  a century  later.  The  only  mediaeval  class  that  still  survives 
in  Europe  is  the  agricultural  labourer.  Such  as  he  still  is  in  out-of- 
the-way  places,  such  he  always  has  been.  The  bent  figures  of 
these  three  have  been  shaped  by  their  labour.  Their  faces  have 
been  hardened  and  sculptured  by  exposure,  frost,  and  storm. 
The  composition  is  not  formal — Hugo  has  passed  beyond  need 
of  a formula — it  begins  to  be  subtle.  The  aspect  of  haphazard 
is  deceptive.  The  figures  are  placed  and  designed  with  skill  in 
their  relation  to  one  another.  All  the  component  parts  have 
been  carefully  studied  and  ably  combined.  The  student  will  not 
fail  to  note  the  excellent  painting  of  the  flowers  and  their  pots 
in  the  foreground.  Such  flower-painting  was  to  be  carried  on  by 
Hugo’s  successors  at  Ghent  and  Bruges,  the  Binninks  and  Horen- 
bouts,  and  their  assistant  miniaturists.  The  whole  picture  is  a 
comprehensive  assemblage  of  facts,  but  of  facts  illumined  by 
imagination.  The  world  in  which  Hugo  lived  was  not  a dreamland, 
but  out  of  its  actualities  he  constructed  waking  dreams  that  seem 
as  real  as  life  itself. 

Perhaps  just  before  Hugo’s  retirement  from  the  world,  he 
may  also  have  painted  those  two  delicate  portraits  of  Plippolyte 
de  Berthoz  and  his  wife  which  he  added  to  the  landscape  already 
prepared  for  them  by  Bouts  on  one  of  the  wings  of  the  triptych 
painted  by  that  artist.  Bouts  died  in  1475  and  Goes  was  employed 
to  value  his  unfinished  work.  This  may  have  been  part  of  it,  and 
Hugo  may  have  then  been  invited  to  make  good  the  deficiency. 
On  the  other  hand,  if  Bouts  had  ever  intended  to  paint  the  portraits 
himself  he  would  surely  have  begun  with  them,  not  with  the 
landscape.  The  reader  will  remember  what  was  written  above 
about  Bouts  as  a landscape  painter.  I suspect  that  this  is  another 
example  of  his  late  habit  of  confining  his  work  mainly  to  landscapes 
and  confiding  the  figures  to  other  hands.  On  this  occasion  Hugo, 
perhaps,  dealt  more  freely  with  his  share  of  the  work  than  would 
have  been  permissible  if  Bouts  had  not  died.  As  it  was,  he  could 
do  what  he  pleased,  and  he  painted  over  a portion  of  the  distance 
and  changed  its  tint  to  make  it  harmonize  with  the  colours  of 
the  costumes  in  the  foreground.  The  two  portraits  are  painted 


184 


HUGO  VAN  DER  GOES 


with  exceeding  delicacy  and  are  a further  proof  of  the  direction 
toward  which  Hugo’s  art  was  tending.  He  was  passing  out  of 
his  period  of  rough  and  brutal  strength  into  one  of  greater  refine- 
ment and  reserve.  Now  or  little  later  he  may  also  have  painted 
the  fine  pair  of  heads  of  a donor  and  his  patron  St.  John  Baptist 
on  a panel  at  Amsterdam  (984a),  which  may  be  a portion  cut  out 
of  a larger  wing-panel.  The  reverent  attention  of  the  donor, 
whose  eyes  are  fixed  on  some  heavenly  vision  to  which  his  saint 
directs  him,  is  admirably  rendered.  It  is  not  merely  the  man’s 
fixed  character  that  is  here  set  down,  but  a transient  expression  ; 
we  must  wait  for  Massys  before  we  shall  find  a face  more  efficiently 
illuminated  by  a passing  mood. 

By  great  good  luck,  we  possess  an  account  of  Hugo’s  life  in 
the  Convent  in  Roodendaal  written  by  a fellow-monk.  Brother 
Ofhuys  of  Tournay  ; some  translated  and  condensed  selections 
from  it  are  here  appended  ; “I  was  a novice,”  he  writes,  “ when 
Van  der  Goes  entered  the  convent  [in  the  autumn  of  1475,  says 
Sander].  He  was  so  famous  a painter  that  men  said  his  like  was 
not  to  be  found  this  side  of  the  Alps.  In  his  worldly  days  he  did 
not  belong  to  the  upper  classes  ; nevertheless,  after  his  reception 
into  the  Convent  and  during  his  novitiate,  the  Prior  permitted  him 
many  relaxations  more  suggestive  of  worldly  pleasure  than  of 
penance  and  humiliation,  and  thus  awakened  jealousy  in  many 
of  our  brethren,  who  said,  ‘ Novices  ought  not  to  be  favoured, 
but  kept  down.’  Often  noble  lords,  and  among  others  the  Arch- 
duke Maximilian,  came  to  visit  him  and  admire  his  pictures. ^ 
At  their  request,  he  received  permission  to  remain  and  dine  with 
them  in  the  guest-chamber.  He  was  often  cast  down  by  attacks 
of  melancholy,  especially  when  he  thought  of  the  number  of 
works  he  had  to  finish.  His  love  of  wine,  however,  was  his  greatest 
enemy,  and  for  that  at  the  guest-table  there  was  no  restraint. 
In  the  fifth  or  sixth  year  after  he  had  taken  the  habit  [i.e.  in  1480 
or  1481],  he  undertook  a journey  to  Cologne  with  his  brother 
Nicholas  and  others.  On  the  way  back  he  had  such  an  attack 
of  melancholy  that  he  would  have  laid  violent  hands  on  himself 
had  he  not  been  forcibly  restrained  by  his  friends.  They  brought 
him  under  restraint  to  Brussels  and  so  back  to  the  convent. 

1 Art-loving  Max,  afterwards  Emperor,  was  at  Roodendaal  in  1478. 


HIS  CONVENT  LIFE 


185 


The  Prior  was  called  in,  and  he  sought  by  the  sounds  of  music 
to  lessen  Hugo’s  passion.  For  a long  time  all  was  useless  ; he 
suffered  under  the  dread  that  he  was  a son  of  damnation.  At 
length  his  condition  improved.  Thenceforward,  of  his  own  will, 
he  gave  up  the  habit  of  visiting  the  guest-chamber  and  took 
his  meals  with  the  lay-brothers.”  This  cannot  have  lasted  long, 
for  he  died  in  1482. 

From  the  foregoing,  it  is  evident  that  Hugo  did  not  take  the 
cowl  in  order  to  lay  down  the  brush,  but  rather  that  he  might 
devote  himself  to  his  art  under  quiet  and  orderly  conditions  of 
life  without  the  distractions  and  temptations  of  the  world.  He 
laboured  on  for  five  years  in  the  very  ripeness  of  his  powers,  and 
though  we  have  no  doubt  lost  some  of  the  work  then  produced,  it 
is  reasonably  certain  that  the  two  important  pictures  now  to  be 
considered  were  painted  at  this  time.  They  are  the  Nativity  and 
the  Adoration  of  the  Magi,  both  comparatively  recent  additions 
to  the  Berlin  Gallery  and  both  painted  on  a large  scale.  Each  is 
about  eight  feet  in  width,  the  Nativity  some  three  feet  high,  the 
Adoration  being  about  half  as  tall  again.  Such  dimensions  imply 
that  the  panels  formed  parts  of  larger  assemblages  and  did  not 
contain  compositions  complete  in  themselves.  In  the  case  of 
the  latter,  existing  copies  and  a drawing  at  Basle  of  about  1501 
by  Holbein  the  Elder  enable  us  to  assert  that  the  panel  was  sur- 
mounted originally  by  a triangular  pediment  filled  with  angels 
and  supplying  the  air  and  space  overhead  which  the  truncated 
composition  so  obviously  lacks.  Both  pictures  came  out  of 
Spain,  but  the  existence  of  the  Holbein  drawing  implies  that  one  of 
them,  at  least,  was  not  painted  for  that  country.  It  is  unrecorded 
when  or  under  what  circumstances  the  Convent  of  Monforte, 
its  last  owner,  obtained  it.  The  history  of  the  other  picture  does 
not  reach  back  more  than  a few  decades.* 

The  Adoration  of  the  Magi  is  Hugo’s  maturest  and  most  perfect 
work ; the  Nativity  serves  well  to  link  it  with  the  Portinari  triptych. 
We  may  therefore  assume  that  the  Nativity  in  point  of  time 
may  have  slightly  preceded  the  Magi.  The  wide  low  form  of  the 
panel  set  a difficult  problem  in  composition.  Our  artist  simplified 

* Bertaux  (meeting  of  the  Acad,  des  Inscrip.,  Dec.  9,  1910)  contended  that  both 
pictures  adorned  a single  altar  and  were  parts  of  one  altar-piece. 


186 


HUGO  VAN  DER  GOES 


his  task  by  filling  each  end  with  the  half-length  figure  of  a prophet. 
The  pair  are  employed  to  draw  and  hold  aside  curtains,  after  the 
manner  of  angels  in  late  Gothic  Italian  tombs  of  Pisan  type, 
thus  displaying  or  revealing  the  mystic  group  to  the  spectator. 
The  figures  composing  it  are  arranged  with  an  approximation  to 
symmetry  unusual  with  Hugo,  and  the  cherubs  instead  of  being 
scattered  about  as  at  Florence  are  concentrated  behind  the  crib. 
Virgin  and  angels  possess  more  formal  beauty  of  type  than  we  have 
met  in  his  pictures  before,  while  the  shepherds  are  less  close  to 
nature,  less  vigorously  and  sympathetically  studied  from  life,  than 
those  we  recently  admired.  It  is  evident  that  Hugo  is  living 
in  a new  atmosphere.  He  has  not  gone  to  the  class  of  toilers 
for  his  models  for  prophets  and  saints,  as  was  his  former  wont, 
neither  is  Joseph  the  shaggy  carpenter  of  the  Portinari  triptych, 
but  a better  kempt  if  not  a better  bred  individual.  The  same 
model  recurs  in  that  lost  Adoration  of  the  Magi  imitated  by  Gerard 
David  in  the  fine  picture  at  Munich  and  known  by  a stricter  copy 
at  Berlin.  The  original  must  likewise  belong  to  the  cloistered 
period  of  the  artist’s  career.  The  kings  and  attendants  in  it 
are  marked  by  the  greater  mildness  and  serenity  of  these  last 
days.  It  is  not  so  well  composed  as  the  Berlin  Nativity,  the 
painter  being  troubled  what  to  do  with  so  many  legs  in  the  kneeling 
position,  which  was  always  a difficulty  for  him. 

Hugo’s  daily  association  with  a better  class  of  companions 
in  the  convent  and  his  contact  with  people  of  rank  obviously 
had  an  effect.  His  last  picture,  the  splendid  Monforte  Magi, 
manifests  it.  He  is  no  whit  less  vital  than  before,  but  he  deals 
with  other  than  the  peasant  class.  The  types  he  now  selects 
are  refined.  This  is  specially  observable  in  the  pages  attendant 
in  the  background.  They  are  well-bred,  w^ell-combed,  and  well- 
dressed.  There  is  no  nonsense  of  imagined  super-piety  about 
them.  Hugo  did  not  include  them  among  the  adorers,  but  interested 
them  in  watching  the  movements  of  a member  of  the  royal  suite. 
There  are  some  excellent  portraits  among  the  subsidiary  figures  : 
a man  in  a blue  cap  is  thought  to  be  the  likeness  of  the  artist. 
Who  can  say  ? The  composition  is  the  best  he  ever  attained,  and 
free  from  monotony  or  awkwardness  of  pose.  The  setting  is 
not  remarkable  and  does  not  distract  attention  from  the  figures. 


THE  MAiTRE  DE  MOULINS 


187 


and  especially  the  heads,  on  which  the  painter  lavished  his  pains. 
The  colouring  is  brilliant  and  beautiful,  but  it  is  by  the  wonderful 
handling  of  the  light  that  the  whole  is  solidified  and  transfigured. 
There  is  no  need  to  assume  the  advent  of  an  Italian  or  other  foreign 
influence.  The  ripe  powers  here  exercised  are  the  artist’s  own, 
developed  along  normal  lines  and  enriched  by  the  experience  of 
a laborious  life.  He  might  have  gone  on  to  a yet  higher  achieve- 
ment had  health  and  strength  permitted,  for  he  was  still  learning, 
still  putting  forth  and  unfolding  the  buds  that  grew  on  his  vigorous 
stem  into  splendid  flowers.  But  with  this  picture,,  as  far  as  posterity 
was  concerned,  his  life-work  was  done.  The  days  of  gloom  settled 
upon  him  and  in  1482,  as  aforesaid,  he  died  in  the  comfortable 
surroundings  of  a sympathetic  brotherhood.  He  was  buried  in 
the  cloister-garth  of  the  convent,  and  at  a later  date  an  epitaph 
was  set  up  to  his  memory  in  the  church. 

Hugo  van  der  Goes  was  by  far  the  most  important  artist  in 
the  city  of  Ghent  in  his  day.  Unfortunately,  we  are  less  well 
informed  about  the  arts  there  than  in  any  other  of  the  leading 
art-centres  in  the  Netherlands  at  that  time,  except  Antwerp  and 
Haarlem.  It  is  obvious  that  Hugo  exerted  a strong  influence 
upon  his  contemporaries,  but  it  is  a little  difficult  to  trace.  An 
excellent  French  artist  appears  to  have  been  formed  by  him  ; 
I refer  to  the  attractive  painter  designated  the  Maitre  de  Moulins. 
One  of  his  earliest  known  works  is  the  Nativity,  with  Cardinal 
Rolin  (ob.  1483)  as  donor,  a picture  preserved  in  the  ^Iveche  at 
Autun.  The  portrait,  the  peasants,  and  the  angels  alike  assert 
their  direct  provenance  from  Hugo.  Specially  to  be  noted  as 
taught  by  him  is  the  drawing  of  the  hands.  A student  who  will 
compare  the  picture  detail  by  detail  with  Hugo’s  works  will  not 
need  to  have  the  resemblances  pointed  out  to  him.  A peculiar 
gesture  of  the  hands  which  the  Moulins  Master  employs  in  his 
Brussels  Madonna  and  an  Annunciation  (probably  in  America) 
is  likewise  a trick  borrowed  from  Hugo,  as  may  be  seen  from  the 
Florentine  Nativity.  The  proportionate  relation  between  Saint 
and  donor  on  wing  panels  is  common  to  both,  and  many  more 
links  might  be  cited.  So  close  is  the  resemblance  between  pupil 
and  master  that  two  pictures  have  actually  been  attributed  to 
Hugo  which  are  now  acknowledged  to  have  been  painted  by 


188 


HUGO  VAN  DER  GOES 


the  Maitre  de  Moulins— the  donor  and  Saint  at  Glasgow  and  the 
portrait  of  Cardinal  Charles  de  Bourbon  at  Nuremberg. 

Two  half-length  portraits  of  man  and  wife  in  the  Uffizi  are 
often  ascribed  to  the  hand  of  Hugo  van  der  Goes.  They  were, 
however,  painted  by  a skilful  follower  to  whom  likewise  may  be 
ascribed  a picture  of  a female  Saint  and  donors  which  was  in  Lord 
Taunton’s  collection  and  is,  at  this  time  of  writing,  in  the  hands 
of  a London  dealer.  The  rigidly  posed  Saint  stands  in  the  midst 
between  a kneeling  man  and  two  women.  The  heads  of  these 
portraits,  rather  too  large  for  their  bodies,  are  painted  with  a 
delicacy  considerably  surpassing  that  of  the  rest  of  the  picture. 
Evidently  the  artist  was  by  preference  a portraitist,  and  had  little 
interest  in  saints  and  such-like.  The  background  gives  a view 
into  a convent  chapel,  and  the  picture  was  doubtless  painted 
for  some  nunnery.  It  is  in  works  of  this  kind  that  the  perishing 
of  the  old  religious  art  of  the  Gothic  age  and  its  replacement  by 
the  realism  of  the  Renaissance  can  be  plainly  traced. 

If,  some  day,  the  work  of  Gerard  van  der  Meire  is  identified, 
our  present  ignorance  about  the  Ghent  School  of  painting  will 
be  diminished.  Meanwhile,  the  reader  may  be  reminded  that 
that  city  was  an  important  centre  of  miniature  painting.  It 
was,  as  Hulin  has  pointed  out,  the  home  of  two  prolific  and  famous 
families  of  miniaturists  : the  Binninks  and  the  Horenbauts. 

Alexander  Binnink  became  a master  in  the  Painters’  Guild  early 
in  1469.  He  married  Cathelyne  van  der  Goes,  considered  by  Hulin 
to  be  a sister  of  the  great  master.  Their  sons,  Simon  and  Paul 
Binnink,  were  both  famous  miniaturists  whose  works  are  known. 
Count  Durrieu  has  identified  a number  of  manuscripts  as  the 
work  of  their  father,  Alexander.  He  originated  the  style  of  work 
which  found  its  most  elaborate  expression  a generation  later 
in  the  famous  Grimani  Breviary  and  other  allied  manuscripts. 
How  far  the  influence  of  Van  der  Goes  can  be  traced  in  this  school 
a reader  who  has  access  to  characteristic  manuscripts  will  be  able 
to  judge.  It  was  not  small. 

One  noteworthy  follower  of  Goes  has  been  disentangled  by 
Winkler^  and  indicated  as  the  painter  of  three  good  pictures, 
to  which  Friedlander  would  add  several  more.  He  was  doubtless 
^ Berlin  Mm.  Amtl.  Ber.,  Jan.  1916. 


GHENT  PAINTERS 


189 


a Ghent  artist.  His  most  considerable  work  is  a group  of  the 
Virgin  surrounded  by  her  relatives  which  hangs  in  the  Ghent 
Museum.  There  is  nothing  very  inspiring  about  it.  The  type 
of  composition  appears  to  have  been  a local  product.  A half- 
length  Madonna,  with  the  Child  standing  uncertainly  on  a cushion, 
is  by  the  same  artist  and  may  be  seen  in  the  Antwerp  Museum. 
More  attractive  than  either  of  these  is  an  Annunciation  on  two 
round-topped  panels  at  Berlin,  with  a long  view  through  pleasant 
rooms  and  a sunlit  corridor  behind.  This  man  was  no  great 
artist,  though  agreeable  enough,  and  need  not  apologize  for  having 
lived,  as  most  of  us  should. 

Hulin  also  locates  as  works  of  the  Ghent  School  an  Adoration 
of  the  Magi  in  the  Fry  Collection  at  Bristol  (Bruges  Exhibition, 
1902,  No.  323)  and  another  of  unexplained  subject  which  is  in  the 
Chapel  of  the  Holy  Blood  at  Bruges  (same  Exhibition,  No.  45). 
They  are  identified  as  of  Ghent  by  resemblances  to  a historically 
important  triptych  with  the  Crucifixion  which  hangs  in  St.  Bavon’s. 
It  is  not  a great  work  of  art,  but  definitely  local.  The  name  of 
Gerard  van  der  Meire  attached  to  it  is  a mere  guess,  in  favour 
of  which  nothing  can  be  said.  Long  and  ugly  noses  are 
characteristic  of  these  pictures,  but  also  some  conspicuously 
short  ones.  Was  Ghent  in  difficulty  with  the  human  nose  ? That 
organ  as  treated  in  a curious  picture  of  Christ  among  the  Doctors, 
belonging  to  the  Due  d’Arenberg  at  Brussels  (Dusseldorf  Ex.,  1904, 
No.  143),  might  suggest  a Ghent  origin  for  it  also  ; but  some  have 
thought  to  trace  in  it  reminiscences  of  Campin,  not  easy  to  discover. 
For  other  information  about  the  Ghent  School  the  local  Museum 
and  its  catalogue  are  the  best  authorities. 

A far  better  artist  than  the  foregoing,  though  of  a later  period 
than  we  are  here  generally  discussing,  was  he  who  painted  a triptych 
now  in  Buckingham  Palace.  The  subject  is  the  Coronation  of 
the  Virgin  in  the  midst  of  a numerous  company  of  the  heavenly 
host,  who  are  depicted  below  and  on  the  wings.  Those  in  front, 
seen  from  behind,  looking  upward  are  rather  awkwardly  posed, 
but  there  is  no  little  charm  in  the  kneeling  ranks  of  saints  further 
up  on  either  hand,  and  the  painting  of  costumes,  crowns,  and 
other  aceessories  is  the  work  of  an  accomplished  teehnician.  He 
does  not,  indeed,  rise  to  the  height  of  his  subject  in  the  central 
14 


190 


HUGO  VAN  DER  GOES 


group,  but  how  could  we  expect  him  to  when  and  where  he  lived  ? 
He  and  his  like  were  truly  interested  only  in  actual  living  human 
beings.  Dreamland  was  no  longer  for  them.  Hence  it  is  the  portrait- 
like heads  and  the  fine  costumes  that  most  attraet  us  in  the  picture, 
as  they  most  interested  its  painter.  Upon  them  he  lavished  his 
stores  of  observation  and  all  his  acquired  skill.  The  influence 
of  Hugo  van  der  Goes  is  here  evident  enough  ; but  was  the  pieture 
painted  in  Ghent  ? Some  have  thought  that  it  contains  elements 
which  are  Freneh.  The  future  must  deeide.  To  the  same  painter 
I venture  to  attribute  a pretty  Virgo  inter  Virgines  in  the  Benziger 
de  Glutz  Colleetion  at  Soleure.  There  are  the  same  attractive 
women  in  both  and  similar  elaborate  thrones,  but  the  background 
of  the  latter  picture  is  elosely  packed  with  landscape  detail — 
women  plucking  flowers  from  a rose-trellis  in  a garden,  a little 
hermitage  under  a rock,  a knight  riding  towards  it,  and  apparently 
an  ineident  in  the  Legend  of  St.  Anthony.  Both  pictures  belong, 
however,  to  a time  about  coineident  with  the  early  days  of  the 
activity  of  Mabuse,  and  are  only  mentioned  here  because  of  their 
apparent  affiliation  to  the  school  of  Van  der  Goes. 

Another  artist,  who  may  have  been  a Netherlander,  though 
it  is  evident  that  he  worked  chiefly  in  France,  is  the  Master  of 
St.  Giles.  He  takes  his  name  from  two  beautifully  painted  wing- 
panels  concerned  with  the  Legend  of  St.  Giles,  one  of  which  has 
already  been  referred  to  in  connexion  with  the  Exhumation  of 
St.  Hubert.  It  belongs  to  Mrs.  Stewart  Mackenzie  ; the  other  is 
in  the  National  Gallery.  Friedlander  says  that  two  pietures  of 
a Bishop’s  legend  sold  in  the  Baron  de  B.  Auetion  (Paris,  1883) 
may  have  formed  part  of  the  same  altar-piece.'  They  depict  a 
Bishop,  standing  before  a cathedral,  blessing  some  sick  folk,  and 
the  same  Bishop  (perhaps  Remigius)  baptizing  a king  (Clovis). 
On  the  National  Gallery  panel  the  Saint  is  protecting  the  fawn. 
The  foreground  is  occupied  by  numerous  figures  remarkable 
for  the  excellent  painting  of  their  clothes,  and  still  more  for  the 
variety  of  the  human  types  and  the  unwearied  minuteness  with 
which  the  faces  and  hands  are  studied.  In  the  background  is 
a wide-extending  and  beautiful  landseape,  including  a town 
depicted  in  much  detail.  Canon  Nicolas  of  Nimes  claims  that 

1 In  the  Repertorium,  xvi,  p.  105,  Tschudi  put  together  the  work  of  this  artist. 


THE  MASTER  OF  ST.  GILES 


191 


this  town  is  none  other  than  Saint-Gilles  in  the  South  of  France/ 
with  all  the  churches  standing  in  correct  relation  to  one  another 
as  they  stood  before  the  destruction  wrought  by  the  religious 
wars  of  the  sixteenth  century.  If  this  identification  is  accepted, 
the  artist  must  have  been  a considerable  traveller,  for  the  other 
panel  proves  him  to  have  spent  some  time  at  the  Abbey  of 
St.  Denis,  otherwise  he  could  not  have  depicted  the  high  altar 
and  its  surroundings  in  the  church  with  such  accuracy  as  in 
Mrs.  Stewart  Mackenzie’s  picture.  Again,  we  have  the  same 
brilliant  colouring  and  the  same  patient  realization  of  the  heads  and 
hands  of  his  models,  all  obviously  studied  from  life.  I have  written 
at  length  in  Archceologia  (vol.  Ixvi,  p.  103)  on  the  architecture 
and  decorative  objects  depicted — the  golden  frontal  of  Charles 
the  Bald,  the  Cross  of  St.  Eloy,  la  Sainte  Couronne,  the  shrine 
of  St.  Louis,  and  the  monument  of  Dagobert — and  need  not  here 
repeat  the  facts  there  set  down.  The  artist’s  weakness  in  per- 
spective is  apparent  in  the  foreground,  though  he  succeeds  in  the 
more  difficult  task  of  projecting  the  complicated  architecture 
aloft  on  his  flat  panel.  It  is  thought  that  he  may  derive,  though 
perhaps  indirectly,  from  Hugo  van  der  Goes,  and  I have  therefore 
introduced  him  at  this  point,  but  the  connexion  is  not  close.  He 
takes  an  important  position  among  the  early  painters  of  interiors 
alongside  of  the  St.  Hubert  Master,  Ouwater,  Geertgen,  and 
another  Dutchman,  who  had  many  successors  in  later  generations. 
To  him  also  are  ascribed  a pair  of  wing-panels  in  the  Kaufmann 
Collection.  One  of  these,  depicting  the  Presentation  in  the  Temple, 
has  for  background  the  first  example  of  Renaissance  architecture 
ever  introduced  into  a picture  of  this  school.  It  was  not  of  the 
artist’s  invention,  but  copied  by  him,  with  understanding,  from 
an  engraving  after  a drawing  by  Bramante,  the  date  of  which 
is  not  earlier  than  1495.  The  well-designed  figures  on  a sculptured 
frieze  above  the  background  niche,  though  not  in  the  original, 
take  their  place  with  no  appearance  of  intrusion — a proof  how  well 
the  painter  had  grasped  the  spirit  of  the  new  kind  of  design.  This 
artist  has  also  been  credited  with  a Christ  before  Pilate  at  Prague, 
a Betrayal  in  the  Cardon  Collection,  a half-length  Madonna  which 
was  at  Kleinberger’s  in  Paris,  and  a St.  Jerome  kneeling  in  a 

^ Une  nouvelle  hist,  de  St.-G.  ; Nimes,  1912. 


192 


HUGO  VAN  DER  GOES 


landscape  in  Berlin  Museum.  The  last-mentioned  is  an  early 
example  of  a type  of  subject  which  became  a favourite  with  Gerard 
David,  Ysenbrandt,  and  their  school,  following  the  example 
of  several  Venetians.  The  landscape  resembles  that  in  the  Saint- 
Gilles  picture,  but  the  detailed  rendering  of  plants  in  the  fore- 
ground is  even  more  elaborate  and  recalls  the  careful  studies  of 
vegetable  life  Diirer  was  beginning  to  make  about  the  same 
time.  Such  simultaneities  are  no  proof  of  personal  connexion, 
but  they  indicate  the  tendencies  of  the  day  to  a closer  interest 
in  nature — a tendency  which  likewise  found  expression  in  the 
cultivation  of  gardens.  Another  conspicuous  example  of  minute 
nature-study  of  the  same  date  is  in  a picture  of  St.  Christopher 
at  Dessau  (No.  245)  wrongly  attributed  to  Diirer.  The  plants 
in  the  foreground  are  studied  with  the  same  detail  and  for  the 
same  delight  in  their  natural  form  as  by  the  Master  of  St.  Giles, 
but  by  some  German  artist  with  whom  neither  he  nor  Diirer  is 
likely  to  have  come  in  contact.  The  St.  Giles  Master’s  subject- 
pictures  have  already  led  us  to  regard  him  as  a good  portrait - 
painter,  but  only  a single  pair  of  formal  portraits  have  been,  as 
yet,  referred  to  him.  They  are  at  Chantilly  and  depict  a man 
and  wife  of  the  burgher  class — strong  faces,  scarred  and  moulded 
by  no  easy  life,  and  knobbly  like  knots  of  wood  ; pathetic  pictures 
both  of  them,  and  creditable  to  their  maker,  who  here  also  shows 
himself  of  the  same  artistic  kindred  as  Hugo  van  der  Goes,  but 
neither  he  nor  the  Maitre  de  Moulins  caught  that  master’s  fire. 
They  were  influenced  by  him  and  learned  much  from  him,  but 
they  were  not  of  the  same  fibre  as  he.  In  all  that  was  strongest 
and  best  in  it  Hugo’s  art  was  personal,  original,  incommunicable. 
Forms  and  methods  he  could  hand  on,  but  not  the  spirit  which 
gave  them  life.  That  was  born  in  him,  led  him  a wildish  life-dance, 
stamped  itself  indelibly  upon  whatever  he  made,  and  died  with 
him.  It  was  authentic  genius. 


CHAPTER  XIV 


JUSTUS  OF  GHENT 

Joos  VAN  Wassenhove  was  admitted  to  free  mastership  in  the 
Antwerp  Painters’  Guild  in  the  year  1460.  That  is  the  first  mention 
we  have  of  him.  Whenee  he  came,  who  was  his  teacher,  when 
and  where  he  was  born — there  is  silence  on  these  and  all  other 
matters  connected  with  his  origin  and  his  shaping.  We  may  guess 
that  he  was  born  between  1430  and  1435,  but  no  one  knows.  Later 
than  1435  he  cannot  have  been  born.  He  was  therefore  of  about 
the  same  age  and  generation  as  Hugo  van  der  Goes,  probably 
a little  older  than  he.  Apparently  Joos  did  not  prosper  at  Antwerp. 
Till  Bruges  seriously  declined  Antwerp  was  unimportant,  and 
in  1460  Bruges  was  at  the  top  of  her  prosperity.  On  October  6, 
1464,  Joos  purchased  the  freedom  of  the  Guild  at  Ghent,  and, 
no  doubt,  moved  himself  and  his  goods  over  from  Antwerp  to 
that  city.  What  works  he  painted  at  this  time  are  unknown. 
It  has  been  suggested  that  this  and  the  other  unattached  picture 
may  have  been  done  by  him  in  these  early  days — a Crucifixion 
in  the  J.  G.  Johnson  Collection,  a couple  of  half-length  Madonnas — 
but  there  is  no  general  agreement  about  them.  The  young  artist 
remains  hidden  and  we  cannot  yet  remove  the  veil.  Perhaps 
he  was  working  as  a tapestry  designer.  There  is  a large  piece  in 
Boston  Museum  with  the  Creation,  Nativity,  Baptism,  Crucifixion, 
and  figures  of  Apostles  and  Prophets,  given  to  him  by  Bernath, 
which  may  owe  him  its  design.  Who  can  say  ? The  head  of 
Christ  in  the  Baptism  is  very  like  that  in  a picture  to  come,  and 
there  are  other  resemblances.  Enough  to  arouse  a suspicion, 
but  not  to  assure  confidence. 

In  1467  the  archives  again  speak.  On  the  5th  day  of  May 
Hugo  van  der  Goes  obtained  the  freedom  of  the  Ghent  Guild, 
and  Joos  was  one  of  his  sureties,  while  in  the  following  January 

193 


194 


JUSTUS  OF  GHENT 


Joos  and  Hugo  together  were  sureties  on  a like  occasion  for  Sanders 
Binnink,  the  miniaturist,  who  became  connected  by  marriage 
with  Hugo,  probably  his  brother-in-law.  It  seems  to  follow  that 
Hugo  and  Joos  were  intimate  and  that  Joos  was,  if  anything, 
the  senior.  Joos  can  scarcely  have  been  Hugo’s  pupil,  though 
the  two  may  have  been  fellow-pupils  in  some  unidentified  studio  at 
Antwerp,  Ghent,  or  elsewhere.  If  their  art  shows  a common  factor, 
that  will  have  come  to  both  from  a common  source  rather  than 
to  one  from  the  other.  In  this  same  year  1467  they  were  employed 
together  by  the  Ghent  authorities  to  paint  heraldic  decorations 
for  a pageant,  but  that  and  the  suretyship  for  Binnink  are  the 
last  mention  of  Joos  in  Flemish  documents.  Thenceforward  he 
vanished  from  the  Netherlands  and  is  heard  of  there  no  more. 
There  is,  indeed,  one  echo  of  him  from  far  away.  It  comes  in  the 
accounts  of  an  executor  of  the  estate  of  one  Van  der  Sikkel,  who 
died  in  1474  and  had  been  the  owner  of  the  house  rented  by  Hugo. 
It  appears  that  Hugo,  on  behalf  of  his  landlord,  had  advanced  a 
sum  of  money  to  our  Joos  toward  the  expenses  of  a journey  to 
Rome  ; Hugo  was  given  credit  for  this  payment  as  part  of  his 
rent.  So  Joos  went  “ to  Rome  ” some  time  between  1468  and  1474, 
probably  about  1470,  as  we  shall  see. 

It  was  not,  however,  in  Rome  that  he  settled,  but  in  Urbino, 
there  to  work  for  the  Duke  on  the  decoration  of  his  study  in  the 
new  Palace.  Vespasiano  de  Bisticci,  the  Duke’s  librarian,  records 
that  his  master  sent  to  Flanders  for  a skilful  master  {un  maestro 
solenne)  for  that  purpose,  because  he  “ knew  no  one  in  Italy  who 
understood  how  to  paint  in  oil-colours.”  Joos,  who  is  hence- 
forward to  be  known  as  Maestro  Giusto  da  Guanto,  was  obviously 
the  said  maestro  solenne  for  reasons  that  will  be  immediately 
apparent.  His  chief  work  in  the  study  was  to  paint  the  twenty- 
eight  pictures  of  philosophers  which  still  exist  in  the  Barberini 
Palace  at  Rome  and  the  Louvre,  half  and  half,  as  well  as  certain 
portraits  and  other  decorative  pictures  elsewhere  in  the  Palace. 

Soon  after  his  arrival,  however,  he  received  another  commission, 
and  this  time  there  is  no  doubt  about  the  artist’s  name,  for  the 
payments  to  him  are  recorded.  It  came  from  the  Urbino  Con- 
fraternity of  the  Holy  Sacrament.  That  body  had  been  ambitious 
to  possess  a fine  painting  for  their  altar  and  had  for  some  time 


AT  URBINO 


195 


been  saving  up  and  begging  together  money  to  pay  for  it.  Already 
between  1466  and  1469  the  predella  had  been  painted  for  it  by 
Paolo  Uccello  and  duly  paid  for.  Then  in  1469  Piero  della  Francesca 
had  come  by  invitation  to  Urbino  to  consider  whether  he  would 
paint  the  main  picture,  but  perhaps  the  money  available  did 
not  suffice  for  him  ; at  any  rate,  he  did  not  do  the  work.  In 
September  1470  the  wood  for  the  great  panel  was  purchased  ; 
the  joinery  of  it  was  finished  in  February  1471.  Probably  this 
was  only  put  in  hand  when  arrangements  had  been  completed 
with  Joos,  and  that  is  why  we  believe  him  to  have  reached  Urbino 
in  1470.  The  picture  was  delivered  in  1474  and  set  up  over  its 
altar.  It  now  hangs  in  the  town  gallery  and  is  the  only  absolutely 
authenticated  painting  by  our  artist. 

The  Flemish  origin  of  the  work,  its  relationship  to  that  of 
Hugo  van  der  Goes,  leap  to  the  eye  at  a first  glance.  Not  the 
Last  Supper,  but  the  Institution  of  the  Sacrament,  an  ancient 
Byzantine  subject,  is  here  chosen  as  obviously  suitable  for  the 
altar-piece  of  this  confraternity.  Christ,  a strangely  posed 
figure,  stands  before  the  table  in  the  midst,  distributing  the  Host, 
which  the  Apostles  kneel  to  receive.  In  no  other  picture  known 
to  me,  of  this  or  any  date,  is  reverence  more  solemnly  represented 
than  here.  These  shaggy  men,  almost  as  rude  as  the  peasants  of 
Hugo,  are  overwhelmed  by  emotion,  which  expresses  itself,  not 
in  the  face  alone,  but  animates  the  whole  body.  Angels,  again 
like  Hugo’s,  hover  in  the  air,  and  one  stands  holding  the  flask  of 
wine.  Behind  we  see  the  Duke  addressing  a richly  clad  personage 
who  is  none  other  than  the  Venetian  Caterino  Zeno,^  at  this  time 
present  at  Urbino  as  special  envoy  from  Uzun  Hasan,  Turkoman  of 
the  White  Sheep,  who  reigned  in  the  parts  of  Armenia  and  Persia 

1 The  White  Sheep  Dynasty  (1378-1502)  was  founded  by  a grant  of  lands  in  Armenia 
and  Mesopotamia  by  Tamerlane.  Diarbekr  was  the  capital.  Uzun  Hasan  (ob.  1478) 
and  his  son  Yakub  (ob.  1485)  were  its  best-known  chieftains.  Uzun  Hasan’s  wife  was 
daughter  of  Calo  Johannes,  one  of  the  last  Emperors  of  Trebizond.  Caterino  Zeno, 
merchant  of  Venice,  was  her  sister’s  son-in-law.  He  was  sent  by  Venice  to  persuade 
Uzun  Hasan  to  attack  Mohammed  II,  who  had  recently  captured  Constantinople  (1453). 
In  1472  hostilities  were  opened,  but  not  with  suceess.  Then  Uzun  Hasan  sent  Caterino 
Zeno  to  rouse  the  princes  of  Christendom,  but  he  failed  to  do  so.  Thereupon  Uzun 
Hasan  withdrew  from  further  attack  on  the  Ottoman  power.  See  P.  M.  Sykes,  History 
of  Persia,  vol.  ii,  p.  220,  and  the  Hakluyt  Society’s  volume.  Travels  of  Venetians  in 
Persia. 


196 


JUSTUS  OF  GHENT 


in  those  days.  This  figure  is  obviously  almost  borrowed  from  that 
of  the  Prince  in  Bouts’  Martyrdom  of  St.  Erasmus.  Further 
back,  just  within  the  door,  is  a woman  with  a child  in  her  arms. 
The  child  is  Federigo’s  son,  the  future  Duke  Guidobaldo  ; the 
woman  may  be  his  recently  deceased  mother,  Battista  Sforza, 
who  died  in  July  1472,  when  her  baby  was  about  six  months 
old.  They  say  that  her  portrait  in  the  Uffizi  by  Piero  della 
Francesca  resembles  this.^ 

The  family  likeness  in  types  and  design  between  this  altar- 
piece  and  the  work  of  Hugo  is  obvious.  It  has  been  assumed  that 
the  likeness  is  due  to  the  influence  of  Hugo  upon  Joos.  Can 
that  be  the  true  explanation  ? If  Joos  left  Ghent  in  1470  or  even 
in  1469  and  Hugo  began  to  work  there,  perhaps  as  his  assistant, 
in  May  1467,  there  was  hardly  time  for  the  younger  artist  to 
make  so  strong  an  impression  on  the  older.  It  seems  to  me 
far  more  likely,  bearing  in  mind  the  evident  friendship  uniting 
them,  that  they  had  been  in  close  relation  at  some  earlier  period 
of  their  career,  and  may  have  learned  their  art  together  in  the 
studio  of  a common  master.  Hugo  as  the  stronger  naturally 
influenced  the  other,  and  the  effect  is  evident  if  we  compare  the 
Urbino  altar-piece  with  Hugo’s  at  Florence.  Such  traditions, 
such  style,  as  Joos  had  acquired  at  home  and  brought  to  Italy 
with  him,  he  displayed  in  this  picture.  Of  Italian  infiltration  there 
is  as  yet  little  trace  ; but  in  the  eight-and -twenty  philosophers 
it  begins  to  be  apparent.  One  might  call  them  Flamingo-Italians. 
Some  of  the  faces  are  taken  from  Italian  originals,  but  the  hands 
are  always  the  hands  of  Flanders.  The  draperies  are  half  and 
half.  The  head  of  Ptolemy  is  almost  copied  from  that  of  John 
the  Baptist  in  the  Ghent  altar-piece,  as  Destree  pointed  out. 
Of  course,  Joos  had  a humanist  scholar  at  his  elbow  to  direct  him 
and  sometimes  a model  to  follow.  He  did  not  invent  Petrarch. 
Always,  too,  there  was  the  atmosphere  of  Italy  about  him  and  Italian 
work  to  look  at.  Perhaps  he  made  a friend  or  two  among  the 
artists  in  his  new  home.  Was  Piero  della  Francesca  one  of  them, 
or  Melozzo  ? It  has  been  claimed  for  Joos  that  he  painted  the 

1 It  is  stated  (in  Monatshefte,  1912,  p.  460)  that  six  of  the  twelve  panels  of  the  wings 
of  this  altar-piece  still  exist  in  Urbino  Cathedral,  and  that  they  contain  another  half- 
dozen  Apostles,  one  a-piece,  like  sculptures  in  niches. 


THE  SEVEN  ARTS 


197 


kneeling  portrait  of  Duke  Federigo  into  Piero’s  altar-piece  which 
is  in  the  Brera.  Co-operation  tries  human  relations.  There  was 
Giovanni  Santi,  Raphael’s  father,  working  in  Urbino  in  these 
days.  It  is  thought  that  he  may  have  helped  Joos  with  the 
twenty-eight.  Giovanni,  in  later  days,  wrote  a rhymed  chronicle 
in  honour  of  his  Duke,  with  special  reference  to  the  work  of  artists 
under  his  patronage.  He  says  nothing  about  Justus  of  Ghent. 
We  may  infer  that  he  was  jealous  of  the  intruder  from  the  North, 
and  we  may  guess  that  he  did  not  stand  alone  in  that  emotion. 
Equally  clear,  however,  is  it  that  the  Duke  was  well  satisfied 
with  the  foreigner’s  service  ; and  well  he  might  be,  for  the  philo- 
sophers are  excellently  painted  and  must  have  made  the  room 
they  adorned  quite  an  interesting  place.  What  a pity  they  were 
not  left  where  they  belonged  ! Nowadays  they  have  faded  in  colour 
and  grown  dark  and  dirty-looking,  but  patient  examination 
reveals  finely  composed  figures,  each  duly  solid  and  rather  vividly 
conceived — grave  and  reverend  signiors  every  one.  Each  was 
explained  by  inscribed  verses,  which  have  been  recorded,  and 
beneath  the  double  row  of  paintings  was  the  beautiful  intarsia 
panelling  still  in  place. 

About  this  time  Joos  also  painted,  for  some  high  place  upon 
the  wall,  the  portrait  of  Federigo,  reading  in  a book,  with  his 
(say,  four-year-old)  son  by  his  side.  One  would  suppose  that  the 
place  for  this  picture  would  be  in  the  library.  A full  description 
of  that  room  exists  ; it  was  mainly  surrounded  by  bookcases. 
Adjacent  was  a chamber  for  which  those  seven  Liberal  Arts  seem 
to  have  been  painted  whereof  two  are  in  the  National  Gallery 
and  another  two  at  Berlin.  They  have  caused  the  critics  much 
divergent  discourse,  some  claiming  them  for  one  artist,  some  for 
another,  but  the  more  part  (till  recently)  voting  for  Melozzo  da 
Forli.  It  is  always  pleasant  to  think  that  a picture  may  be  by 
Melozzo  : he  was  an  attractive  painter  ; not  profound  nor  highly 
imaginative,  nor,  in  fact,  any  way  great,  but  quite  delightful  all 
the  same,  with  a certain  rightness  of  design  and  pleasing  faculty 
of  choosing  nice  models  and  posing  and  clothing  them  agreeably. 
The  four  surviving  Arts  certainly  recall  Melozzo  in  design,  but 
Joos  in  execution.  It  is  hardly  possible  to  think  that  a Fleming 
could  have  become  so  Italianized  in  six  years  as  to  have  been  entirely 


198 


JUSTUS  OF  GHENT 


responsible  for  these  pictures.  He  had  indeed  advanced  a long 
way  from  Flanders  in  the  philosophers,  but  some  Italian  may  have 
helped  him  with  them.  The  Arts,  however,  are  more  than  double 
the  distance  further  along  that  road.  If  the  hand  is,  as  I believe, 
the  hand  of  Joos,  the  design  may  owe  much  to  Melozzo’s  help. 
Destree,  however,  has  justly  pointed  out  that  Ghent  traditions 
are  not  absent,  and  that  the  head  of  Music  is  imitated  from  the 
Virgin’s  in  the  Van  Eyck  altar-piece.  This  alone  suffices  to 
disprove  the  authorship  of  Melozzo. 

For  some  other  position  in  one  of  the  Duke’s  rooms — a lecture- 
room,  perhaps,  if  there  was  one — our  artist,  and  none  but  he,  both 
designed  and  painted  a decorative  picture  which  has  found  its 
way  in  a battered  condition  into  Windsor  Castle.  This  also 
was  to  be  fixed  upon  a wall,  and,  as  with  the  philosophers,  so,  too, 
with  the  people  here  visible,  they  are  depicted  as  seated  in  a 
gallery  into  which  we  can  look  from  below  through  the  inter- 
spaces of  a colonnade.  Here  is  Federigo  again  with  the  boy 
Guidobaldo  by  his  side,  now  some  six  years  old.  The  Duke  in 
this,  as  in  the  preceding  portrait,  wears  the  insignia  of  the  Order 
of  the  Garter,  conferred  on  him  in  1474  by  Edward  IV.  Behind 
the  princes  are  three  courtiers  seated  in  a row,  all  attending  to 
the  discourse  of  an  appallingly  long-nosed  professor,  who  is  holding 
forth  from  a pulpit  facing  them.  Federigo  is  evidently  enjoying  the 
lecture,  and  his  face  is  bright  and  attentive,  but  everyone  else 
looks  bored  and  the  professor  boring.  I can  never  see  this  picture 
without  remembering  Matthew  Arnold’s  description  of  a Social 
Science  Congress : a “ room  in  one  of  our  dismal  provincial 
towns  ; dusty  air  and  jaded  afternoon  daylight ; benches  full 
of  men  with  bald  heads  and  women  in  spectacles  ; an  orator  lifting 
up  his  face  from  a manuscript  written  within  and  without  . . . 
and  in  the  soul  of  any  poor  child  of  nature  who  may  have  wandered 
in  thither,  an  unutterable  sense  of  lamentation  and  mourning 
and  woe  ! ” I suspect  many  of  the  new  humanists  were  like  the 
glaciers  of  which  Douglas  Freshfield  said,  “ It’s  doubtful  whether 
they  excavate,  but  it  is  certain  that  they  bore.”  Fortunately, 
we  are  not  the  audience,  but  spectators,  and  not  of  the  scene,  but 
of  a picture  of  it,  the  most  delightful  picture  ever  painted  by 
our  artist ; so  spacious  is  it,  so  beautifully  composed,  so  serenely 


PLATE  VIII 


1.  THE  :\IASTEI\  OF  ST.  GILES.  JLA.SS  IX 
ST.  DENIS.— p.  191. 


2.  A FOLLOWER  OF  HUGO  VAN  DER 
GOES.  BUCKINGHAM  PAL.A.CE.— p.  LS9. 


3.  .JUSTI  S OF  GHENT.  .V  COI  R'I  lER  OF 
URRINO.  RERGA.MO.— p.  loS. 


1.  .JUS  TUS  OF  GHENT.  R.  VAN  :\H1)DELRURG 
LECTURING  (1178-80).  WINDSOR.— p.  198. 

I To  face  j>age  198, 


■j:.! 


HIS  PORTRAITS 


199 


competent.  Nothing  is  out  of  place,  nothing  too  much.  The 
crowding  and  bungling  characteristic  of  so  many  Northern  artists 
have  been  refined  away. 

The  courtier  on  the  extreme  right  of  the  picture  meets  us 
again  on  a little  panel  in  the  gallery  at  Bergamo,  which  has  been 
ascribed  to  Mabuse  and  later  to  the  Ursula  Master.  It  was,  in 
fact,  painted  by  Joos.  Possibly  the  sitter  may  not  be  the  same  as 
the  courtier  in  question,  but  assuredly  the  painter  of  both  is  the 
same.  What  a proper  young  man  he  looks  ! — a well-disciplined 
secretary,  perhaps.  A narrow  brocaded  curtain  hangs  behind  the 
head,  with  fragments  of  landscape  visible  to  right  and  left  of 
it.  They  are  obviously  Flemish,  these  bits  of  landscape,  with 
waters,  bridges,  manor-house,  hills,  trees,  and  so  forth  which  form 
the  normal  ingredients  of  Flemish  landscape  backgrounds.  Italy 
goes  for  a good  deal  in  the  painting  of  the  head,  but  for  nothing 
at  all  in  the  landscape.  If  the  attribution  of  this  portrait  to  Justus 
is  accepted,  as  it  seems  to  me  that  it  must  be,  he  will  also  have  to 
be  regarded  as  the  painter  of  another  bust-portrait  in  the  James 
Mann  Collection,  which  bears  a striking  resemblance  to  it  in  style, 
but  has  a plain  background.  The  subject  is  likewise  an  Italian, 
who  may,  perhaps,  be  identical  with  another  of  the  Urbino  lecturer’s 
audience  seated  behind  the  Duke  Federigo.^ 

Of  other  works  attributed  to  Joos  I can  say  little.  There  is 
an  embroidered  vestment,  a pluviale,  in  Gubbio  Cathedral  for  which 
he  may  have  supplied  designs.  The  head  of  a Salvator  Mundi 
in  the  Gallery  at  Citta  di  Castello  (room  ii.  No.  18)  is  assigned  to 
him  by  Venturi,  and  the  photograph  confirms  the  gift.  We  are 
also  tempted  to  agree  with  Bernath  in  attributing  a much-damaged 
Adoration  of  the  Magi  in  Trevi  Museum  to  our  artist.  The  kings 
resemble  his  peasant-apostles.  I see  no  reason  to  assign  to  him 
the  Mater  Dolorosa  in  the  Palazzo  Corsini  at  Rome,  still  less 
the  Madonna  there.  Another  Adoration  of  the  Magi  belonging 
to  the  Compagna  della  Misericordia  at  Volterra  is  known  to 
me  only  by  a bad  photograph.  It  may  have  some  connexion 
with  Joos. 

That,  for  the  moment,  is  all  I have  to  say  about  him.  He 
was  an  interesting  though  not  highly  gifted  artist,  full  of  good 

1 See  Burlington  Mag.,  Jan.  1917. 


200 


JUSTUS  OF  GHENT 


feeling  and  able  to  go  on  learning  and  developing  as  far  along  in 
his  career  as  we  can  follow  him.  Neither  his  beginnings  nor  his 
endings  are  known  to  us.  He  appears ; he  disappears.  The 
registers  are  silent,  so  far  as  we  yet  know.  But  the  galleries 
and  churches  of  Europe  are  many,  and  some  day  they  may  yield 
to  a rightly  prepared  observation  pictures  recognizable  as  the  work 
of  his  early  or  latest  days.  If  every  north  country  artist  who  went 
to  Italy  had  gained  as  much  and  lost  as  little  as  Joos  van  Wassenhove 
the  world  would  be  richer  by  many  masterpieces. 


CHAPTER  XV 


SOME  DUTCHMEN 

A NAME  tantalizing  to  the  historian  of  Art  is  that  of  Albert  Simonsz 
van  Ouwater.  Van  Mander  knew  of  his  existence  and  had  seen 
a retable  by  him  in  the  great  church  at  Haarlem.  It  was  called 
the  Roman  altar-piece,  because  pilgrims  to  Rome  had  erected  it. 
That  was  why  it  depicted  the  Apostles  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul, 
full-length  standing  figures,  and  for  predella  a curious  landscape 
with  pilgrims  in  it  marching,  resting,  eating,  and  drinking. 
Predellas  were  a rare  feature  in  Netherlands  altar-pieces,  but 
we  shall  meet  with  them  again  in  Holland.  Albert,  con- 
tinues our  author,  was  clever  at  depicting  heads,  hands, 
draperies,  and  landscape.  Unfortunately,  the  picture  no  longer 
exists.  Van  Mander  had  also  seen  a monochrome  copy  of  another 
painting  by  the  same  master,  in  which  the  Raising  of  Lazarus 
was  shown,  as  occurring  within  a church,  after  the  manner  of 
a mystery-play,  the  Apostles  on  one  side,  Jews  on  the  other,  beside 
some  nice  figures  of  women,  and,  away  behind,  folk  peeping  in 
at  the  miracle.  The  original  was  greatly  admired  by  Heemskerk, 
but  the  Spaniards  had  looted  it  at  the  siege  of  Haarlem  and  carried 
it  away.  By  great  good  luck  this  picture  emerged  a few  years 
ago  at  Genoa  in  the  hands  of  a family  who  remembered  that  it 
had  come  to  them  as  a royal  gift  from  Spain.  The  Berlin  Museum 
snapped  it  up,  and  we  all  had  great  hopes  that  by  its  help  we  might 
be  able  to  identify  other  works  by  the  same  master.  Things  have 
not  so  turned  out.  Critics  have  attempted  to  group  other  pictures 
with  it,  but  no  general  agreement  has  been  arrived  at  and  it  remains 
still  unique — the  artist’s  sole  memorial. 

It  has  already  been  referred  to  above,  as  evidently  imitated 
in  general  arrangement  from  the  Exhumation  of  St.  Hubert,  a 
picture  which  can  hardly  have  been  painted  before  1460,  probably 
later.  We  may,  therefore,  guess  for  the  Lazarus  1470  as  an 

201 


202 


SOME  DUTCHMEN 


approximate  date.  A glance  shows  that  it  is  not  one  of  the  great 
pictures  of  the  fifteenth  century.  Rather  light  in  tone,  somewhat 
rudimentary  in  composition,  conventional  in  lighting,  quite 
undramatic,  it  is  the  work  of  a man  of  no  high  imagination,  but 
painstaking,  studious,  and  a competent  craftsman.  It  is  easy  to 
see  how  much  he  depended  upon  his  predecessors.  The  figure 
standing  on  the  extreme  right  shows  his  indebtedness  to  Bouts, 
in  whose  studio  he  may  have  worked  as  pupil  or  assistant.  The 
group  of  Jews  recalls  a corresponding  group  in  the  foreground  of 
the  Van  Eyck  Fountain  of  Living  Water.  The  architecture,  also, 
with  its  slender  columns,  sculptured  capitals,  and  windows  of 
bottle-glass,  is  borrowed  from  the  Van  Eycks.  The  crowd  peeping 
through  the  door-hatch  finds  several  prototypes,  but  it  is  here 
exceptionally  well  rendered,  the  depth  of  it  being  truthfully 
suggested,  with  a body  implied  under  each  head.  In  the  same  way, 
the  groups  to  right  and  left  have  a depth  which  we  miss  in  those 
designed  by  Bouts.  Poor  St.  Peter  is  anything  but  an  imposing 
figure.  He  resembles  a second-rate  showman,  saying  “ That’s 
how  it’s  done  ! ” Most  attractive  is  the  Mary  standing  on  the 
left,  a sweet,  well-dressed,  well-posed  little  Dutch  lady,  perhaps 
painted  from  the  life.  “ This,”  says  Van  Mander,  “ is  all  that 
Time  has  preserved  for  us  of  the  work  of  this  old  master  to  , save 
his  name  from  oblivion.”  Archives  tell  us  nothing  more,  except 
that  in  1467  a grave  was  made  in  the  church  of  St.  Bavon  at 
Haarlem  for  “ the  daughter  of  Ouwater.”  She  can  scarcely  have 
been  a young  child  ; so  we  may  guess  with  a wide  margin  of  error 
that  the  father  was  born  about  1420.  There  are  reasons  to  think 
that  he  may  have  lived  till  1480  or  later. 

Far  away  in  the  San  Carlos  Museum  of  Mexico  is  a painting, ‘ 
obviously  by  a follower  of  our  artist.  Its  subject  is  the  same  as 
the  foregoing,  and  many  of  the  individual  figures  are  borrowed 
from  it,  but  an  attempt  has  been  made  to  hide  the  debt  by  changing 
their  positions.  The  figure  of  Christ  is  obvious!}'-  copied  ; nor 
was  this  the  only  artist  who  found  it  useful,  for  Gerard  David 
almost  repeated  it  on  a panel  in  the  Dublin  Gallery.  The  back- 
ground of  the  Mexico  picture  is  likewise  borrowed,  this  time  from 
the  Sibyl  and  Augustus  at  Frankfurt  (No.  97).  The  figures  in 

^ Reproduced  in  the  Archiv  fur  Kunstgeschichte,  pi.  60. 


ALBERT  VAN  OUWATER 


203 


that  stand  within  the  courtyard  of  a palace.  The  gateway  is 
behind  on  the  left,  approached  by  a bridge  over  a moat.  Beside 
the  gate  is  a broad  opening  leading  down  from  the  court  to  the 
water  and  the  swans.  On  the  other  side  of  this  opening  is  a little 
garden-patch,  and  beyond  it  a wing  of  the  house  with  a colonnaded 
portico.  These  features  are  repeated  in  reverse  order  in  the  Mexico 
picture. 

The  painter  of  the  Sibyl  undoubtedly  likewise  painted  a Madonna 
which  belongs  to  Mrs.  Stephenson  Clarke,  at  Haywards  Heath.* 
Another  enthroned  Virgin  with  angels  under  a garden  portico  is 
in  the  Chapel  Royal  at  Granada.  It  looks,  in  the  photograph, 
as  though  it  also  might  have  been  painted  by  him  in  Bouts’  studio  ; 
at  all  events,  the  brocade  on  the  back  of  the  seat  is  identical  with 
brocades  in  pictures  undoubtedly  painted  by  Bouts.  If,  however, 
this  picture  is  by  the  senior  master,  as  is  quite  possible,  it  plainly 
shows  where  the  Sibyl  Master  derived  his  inspiration  and  fixes 
the  period  in  Bouts’  career  when  the  young  Dutchman  was  his 
pupil.  A beautiful  Virgo  inter  Virgines,  which  belonged  or 
belongs  to  the  King  of  Portugal  and  was  (perhaps  is)  in  the 
Necessidades  Palace  at  Lisbon,  may  likewise  be  his  work.  I can 
only  judge  it  from  the  good  photograph  published  by  the  Arundel 
Club.  It  is  wrongly  ascribed  to  the  Delft  painter  known  as  the 
Master  of  the  Amsterdam  Virgo  inter  Virgines,  with  whom  w^e  shall 
presently  deal.  It  may  well  have  been  by  his  teacher.  A Marriage 
of  the  Virgin  in  the  J.  G.  Johnson  Collection,  which  Valentiner 
attributes  to  the  Sibyl  Master,  is  not,  I think,  by  him.  Our  artist 
is  very  careful  about  the  perspective  of  his  backgrounds  ; the 
painter  of  the  Johnson  picture  is  the  reverse.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  figures  in  the  Marriage  are  more  vivacious  and  co-operative ; 
it  is  evidently  the  work  of  an  artist  of  the  Haarlem  School  of 
about  this  date. 

If  the  small  group  of  pictures  thus  defined  as  the  work  of  the 
Sibyl  Master  (especially  the  Frankfurt  and  Clarke  panels)  are 
compared  with  Ouwater’s  Lazarus,  some  striking  correspondencies 
will  be  observed.  Note,  for  instance,  the  pose  of  the  woman  in 
the  Sibyl  picture,  who  has  her  left  hand  under  her  skirt ; it  is  the 
same  as  that  of  one  of  the  Maries  in  the  Lazarus.  Note,  too, 

1 Bruges  Exhibition  (1902),  No.  43. 


204 


SOME  DUTCHMEN 


the  similar  gestures  of  the  small  hands.  Observe  the  careful 
painting  of  the  heads  and  how  each  of  them  is  independent  of 
the  others,  like  a number  of  portraits  cut  out  and  fitted  together 
but  not  really  related  to  one  another.  The  type  of  the  hands 
is  the  same.  The  figures  stand  in  the  same  balanced  fashion 
upon  their  well-drawn  feet.  I suggest  that  the  Sibyl  Master  may 
have  been  Ouwater  himself,  and  I leave  the  reader  to  follow  out 
the  comparison  in  detail. 

The  Sibyl  Master,  whether  Ouwater  or  not,  is  a pleasing  though 
not  a great  artist.  He  interests  us  more  by  his  backgrounds 
than  his  figures ; yet  his  pictures  are  satisfactory  as  integral 
wholes.  The  charm  of  a work  of  art  does  not  lie  in  true  drawing, 
or  correct  perspective,  or  learned  foreshortenings,  or  any  such 
photographic  accuracies,  but  in  the  thing  as  a whole,  the  balance 
and  rhythm  of  it,  the  harmony  of  its  parts,  the  good  pattern,  the 
agreeable  complex  of  forms  and  colours,  which  are  all  independent 
of  the  drill-sergeant’s  proprieties.  If  an  artist  has  beauty  within 
him  and  the  power  to  express  it,  so  long  as  he  does  express  it  he 
may  use  what  means  he  pleases.  Though  the  Sibyl  Master  blun- 
dered over  his  parts  he  succeeded  with  each  whole.  He  made 
agreeable  pictures,  decorative,  pleasant  to  live  with  and  by  imagina- 
tion to  wander  in.  It  is  noteworthy  that  he  possessed  the  merits 
attributed  to  Ouwater  by  Van  Mander ; well-painted  heads, 
extremities,  draperies,  and  landscape.  According  to  Marcantonio 
Michiel,  there  were  in  the  house  of  Cardinal  Grimani  at  Venice 
in  1521  “ molte  tavolette  de  paesi  per  la  maggior  parte  de  mano 
de  Alberto  de  Olanda.”  Van  Mander  says  that  it  was  the  opinion 
of  the  oldest  painters  (of  his  day)  that  it  was  at  Haarlem  that  the 
proper  way  to  paint  landscape  was  first  adopted.  It  is  a little 
difficult  to  interpret  this  remark  in  the  light  of  our  knowledge 
of  the  landscapes  of  Hubert,  but  after  him  Bouts  was  the  chief 
landscape  innovator  and  he  brought  his  landscape  style  with 
him  from  Holland  and  only  developed  it  at  Louvain.  The  Sibyl 
Master’s  pictures,  however,  do  innovate  in  that  they  prolong  the 
landscape  into  the  foreground  by  painting  the  figures  as  actually 
within  gardens.  The  gardens  are  not  background  details,  but 
part  of  the  foreground.  Leaving  that  astonishing  genius  Hubert 
van  Eyck  out  of  account,  the  most  considerable  landscapes  before 


MEDIEVAL  GARDENS 


205 


this  time  were  those  of  Dutch  Bouts  : the  St.  Christopher  wing 
at  Munich  and  the  Paradise  wing  at  Lille.  In  both  of  these  the 
landscape  is  piled  up  by  a peculiar  convention  and  the  foreground 
seems  to  be  looked  down  upon  from  an  elevation.  The  Sibyl 
Master  brings  the  eye  of  the  spectator  lower  and  so  gives  to  the 
foreground  greater  importance.  He  was  the  first  artist  to  paint 
gardens  as  though  he  loved  them.  Gardens  had  appeared  as  un- 
important background  accessories  before  this  time,  but  not  painted 
for  their  own  sake.* 

One  of  the  earliest  mediaeval  gardens  into  which  we  can  peer, 
if  garden  it  can  be  called,  is  that  shown  on  the  Paradise  picture 
of  about  1420  by  a Rhine  painter,  which  is  at  Frankfurt.  Evidently 
what  we  see  is  some  corner  of  an  outer  bailey.  There  is  a raised  bank 
against  the  wall  and  flowers  are  growing  upon  it.  Otherwise  all 
the  flowers  grow  out  of  the  grass.  A table  and  fountain  complete 
the  furnishings  of  the  place.  The  wall  behind  the  bank  may  be 
replaced  by  a flower-trained  trellis  as  in  another  picture  at  Soleure 
by  the  same  painter.  A much  more  elaborate  trellis- work  just 
rises  above  the  bailey-wall  in  the  de  Limbourg  miniature  which 
depicts  the  old  Palace  on  the  island  in  the  Seine  at  Paris.  Here 
is  a long  pleached  alley  ending  in  a treillage  dome,  and  such  pleached 
alleys,  close  around  the  outer  wall,  appear  in  many  other  pictures 
— in  Sir  Herbert  Cook’s  Virgin  with  St.  Catherine,  for  instance, 
and  in  another  of  the  Calendar  miniatures  by  the  de  Limbourgs. 
The  Duke  of  Berry’s  castles  have  no  gardens,  nor  do  any  appear 
in  the  Hours  of  Turin.  The  only  garden  in  any  picture  by  the 
Van  Eycks  is  that  of  the  Virgin  by  a Fountain  described  in  a 
previous  chapter.  It  is  the  Hortus  Inclusus  emblematic  of  the 
Virgin.  We  have  to  come  down  past  the  middle  of  the  century 
before  true  gardens  make  their  appearance  in  Netherlands  pictures. 
They  are  for  the  most  part  small  rectangular  enclosures  within 
the  outer  yard  of  a great  house  or  castle.  Sir  Frank  Crisp 
discovered  one  or  two  little  bourgeois  gardens  of  which  he  gives 


* The  best  collection  of  garden  backgrounds  from  pictures  is  the  late  Sir  Frank  Crisp’s 
Mediaeval  Gardens  (Guide  to  Friar  Park,  Henley-on-Thames).  Several  gardens  were 
actually  remade  on  these  old  designs  at  Friar  Park.  A short  paper  on  this  subject  by  Prof. 
E.  Kiister  is  published  in  the  Repertorium,  1919,  pp.  148-158.  See  also  A.  Grisebach, 
Der  Garten  (Leipzig),  with  many  illustrations. 

15 


206 


SOME  DUTCHMEN 


reproductions,  but  they  do  not  differ  in  type  from  those  belonging 
to  wealthier  folk.  The  garden  seen  through  the  window  in  the 
Annunciation,  once  in  the  Kann  Collection  and  attributed  to 
Van  der  Weyden,  may  be  taken  as  typical.  The  attribution  of 
the  picture  to  that  artist  has  been  contested,  and  it  is  worth 
mention  that  in  no  picture  universally  accepted  as  by  Roger  is 
a garden-view  introduced.  A similar  garden  is  in  the  background 
of  a wing  picture  of  two  saints  attributed  to  Roger  at  Berlin, 
but  its  authenticity  is  on  a level  with  that  of  the  Annunciation. 
If  Roger  painted  them  it  was  in  his  last  years,  and  he  took  the 
idea  of  the  garden  backgrounds  from  Bouts.  Campin  and  Daret 
are  innocent  of  gardens.  So  are  Geertgen,  Hugo  van  der  Goes, 
Justus,  and  Albert  Bouts.  The  only  picture  attributed  to  Memling 
which  has  a garden  is  the  Virgin  with  St.  George,  in  the  National 
Gallery,  and  its  authenticity  is  doubtful.  But  to  return  to 
the  Annunciation  attributed  to  Roger : we  see  through  a window 
into  a yard  surrounded  by  a high  battlemented  wall.  There 
is  a gateway  in  the  angle  with  a half-timber  storey  above  the 
arch,  and  over  it  an  attic  with  dormer  windows  ; a round  staircase 
tower  is  built  against  the  side  of  this  little  edifice.  Anyone  entering 
through  this  gate  comes  at  once  upon  the  garden,  occupying  all 
the  area  of  the  yard  except  a broad  roadway  from  the  gate  to 
the  house.  A high  raised  bank,  built  up  of  bricks  but  containing 
soil  like  a large  wooden  window-box,  surrounds  the  enclosure 
and  is  broken  by  openings  at  the  ends  of  the  rectangular  paths 
that  subdivide  the  enclosed  area.  Grass  and,  perhaps,  some 
flowers  grow  on  these  banks,  which  seem  to  have  been  freely  used 
as  seats.  Sometimes  such  a bank,  with  the  two  ends  returned 
(like  an  exedra)  and  with  or  without  a trellis  behind,  is  made  on 
purpose  for  a seat  and  placed  in  the  midst  of  a flowery  sward. 
The  area  of  the  garden  is  divided  into  rectangular  beds,  likewise 
raised  on  low  brick  walls  and  sometimes  also  protected  by  a railing 
or  trellis  a few  inches  high.  In  the  beds  are  plants  or  grass  with 
flowers  emerging  from  it.  Against  the  wall  we  see  two  little  trees 
in  pots.  They  have  been  cut  and  trained  into  a formal  shape — 
a large  circle  below,  a smaller  one  above  it,  and  a knob  at  the 
top.  Here  is  the  beginning  of  modern  topiary  work  such  as  the 
Romans  had  fashioned  in  their  day. 


MEDIAEVAL  GARDENS 


207 


Sir  Frank  Crisp  reproduced  several  miniatures  with  formal 
trees.  In  the  earliest  the  branches  springing  from  the  top  of  a 
standard  are  trained  out  at  right  angles  by  aid  of  a sort  of  light 
wheel  fixed  horizontally  in  place.  Perhaps  the  standard  is  merely 
the  stem  of  the  wheel,  up  which  the  plant  is  supposed  to  grow. 
Then  we  come  across  two  or  even  three  of  these  wheel  frames 
one  above  another.  Sometimes  the  wheel  is  quite  small  and 
the  plant,  visibly  curling  up  the  stick  that  supports  it,  grows 
out  of  a pot.  One  amusing  miniature  reproduced  by  him  shows 
two  churchmen,  like  the  hermits  Paul  and  Anthony,  having  a 
jollification  in  the  desert  by  the  kind  provision  of  angels.  Truth 
to  tell,  they  are  not  eating  but  drinking.  There  is  not  even  a 
fragment  of  bread  to  this  intolerable  deal  of  sack.  They  have 
a large  jug  on  the  table  and  brimming  cups  in  their  hands.  They 
are  patting  one  another  on  the  shoulder  in  perfect  contentment, 
while  an  angel  comes  flying  up  with  another  jugful  and  yet  another 
angel  is  miraculously  making  more  wine  for  them  from  the  grapes 
of  a conveniently  ripening  vine  close  at  hand  ! All  this,  however, 
is  not  to  our  point,  but  only  the  tree  under  which  they  sit.  That 
is  trained  into  two  circular  storeys  by  aid  of  two  rings  to  which 
the  branches  have  been  fastened.  When  the  rings  had  done 
their  work  they  were  removed,  as  we  can  observe  in  many  pictures 
of  this  period. 

The  same  gate-house  and  garden  as  in  the  Rogeresque 
Annunciation  are  again  depicted  in  a triptych  with  the  Last 
Supper  which  belongs  to  the  Seminary  at  Bruges, ‘ a work  in  which 
the  influence  of  Bouts  is  visible.  Like  the  Annunciation  it  may 
have  been  painted  in  Brussels.  The  same  gate-house,  if  I mistake 
not,  but  with  the  yard-walls  differently  attached,  is  in  the  Madonna 
in  the  Carvallo  Collection,  which  Winkler  cites  as  derived  from  a 
supposed  lost  Roger  Madonna  kissing  the  Child.'  Here,  however, 
the  garden  is  different.  It  occupies  the  same  position  relatively 
to  the  yard,  and  is  enclosed  by  a built  bank  ; in  the  centre  of  the 

^ Bruges  Loan  Exhibition,  1902,  No.  42,  phot.  Bruckmann. 

^ The  garden  in  the  Dresden  drawing  after  the  same  picture  is  different,  but  quite 
simple,  with  raised  bank  and  beds  and  a shaped  tree.  The  wall  behind  carries  a little 
roof  supported  on  projecting  struts,  such  as  is  sometimes  used  to  protect  wall  fruit — a 
unique  example  so  far  as  I know.  As  all  the  early  versions  of  the  picture  are  backed  by 
gardens  I cannot  believe  the  original  to  have  been  by  Roger. 


208 


SOME  DUTCHMEN 


enclosure  is  a fine  Gothic  fountain  and  a flowery  mead  around  it, 
but  no  square  beds.  A similar  garden,  again,  is  in  the  background 
of  the  Legend  of  St.  Lucia  in  the  Church  of  St.  Jacques  at  Bruges, 
the  picture  from  which  the  Lucia  Master  has  been  named. 

The  Sibyl  Master’s  garden  in  the  Clarke  Madonna  is  more 
elaborate  than  these  and  is  not  a mere  detail  seen  through  a window, 
but  fills  the  whole  foreground  of  the  picture.  We  find  ourselves 
again  in  the  outer  yard  of  a manor-house.  A raised  bed  is  against 
the  wall,  others  are  in  the  centre  of  the  yard,  and  there  is  one  of 
those  built-up  seats  for  the  Virgin  to  sit  on.  This  house  has  a 
fine  portico  opening  on  to  the  garden  and  a peacock  on  the  wall. 
Portico  and  peacock  recur  in  many  such  scenes,  and  swans,  too, 
as  here,  upon  the  moat.  The  raising  of  the  beds  was  to  save  them 
from  being  walked  over  by  careless  folk  entering  the  courtyard 
and  making  short  cuts.  Such  garden  patches  are  often  surrounded 
by  a paling  or  low  trellis -work.  A very  elaborate  little  garden  of 
this  kind,  occupying  only  a part  of  the  yard,  is  seen  in  a charming 
Virgin  and  Child  with  St.  Anne,  which  is  in  the  Louvre,  an  anony- 
mous Dutch  picture.  The  saintly  personages  and  four  much- 
puzzled  singing  angels  are  within  the  portico  abutting  on  the 
garden.  Here  the  beds  are  more  numerous,  there  are  plants 
and  shaped  trees  in  pots  placed  about,  and  the  whole  thing  is  better 
tended  than  usual.  The  Ursula  Master  liked  to  surround  his  gardens 
with  what  appears  to  be  an  iron  railing  with  roses  trained  over  it. 
This  railing  seems  to  enclose  almost  the  whole  area  of  the  yard, 
leaving  only  a roadway  between  it  and  the  surrounding  walls. 
We  see  it  best  in  his  picture  of  the  enthroned  St.  Anne  in  the 
Kaufmann  Collection,  the  throne  being  under  the  portico.  It 
likewise  appears  in  the  Madonna  which  was  in  Sir  Charles  Turner’s 
sale  (No.  9)  and  in  the  portrait  in  the  J.  G.  Johnson  Collection. 
The  most  prettily  painted  of  all  the  little  gardens  is  a miniature 
in  a manuscript  of  the  Decameron  (Vienna  Lib.,  No.  2617),  repro- 
duced by  Sir  Frank  Crisp.  It  is  just  an  oblong  of  grass  enclosed 
by  one  of  those  built-up  banks  on  which  a pretty  lady  is  sitting. 
Roses  are  trained  over  a finely  forged  iron  railing  at  her  back, 
and  the  entrance  to  the  enclosure  is  a narrow  Gothic  porch, 
against  and  over  which  the  flowers  grow ; but  this  is  Italian  work. 
Thoroughly  northern  is  the  garden  in  one  of  the  Justice  pictures 


PLATE  IX 


ALBERT  VAX  OUWATER.  LAZARUS  (c. 
1465).  BERLIN.— p.  201. 


2.  OUWATER  SCLIOOL.  LAZARUS. 
MEXICO.— p.  202. 


3.  THE  HAARLEM' SIBYI.  MASTER  (c.  1175).  FRANKFURT, 
n.  203. 


4.  DUTCH  SCHOOL.  LISBON.— pp.  203,  209. 


\To  lace  page  208. 


MEDIEVAL  GARDENS 


209 


painted  by  Bouts  in  his  last  years  for  Louvain.  It  is  a castle 
garden  this  time,  walled  off  from  a great  park-like  enclosure, 
and  there  are  two  adjacent  squares,  each  within  its  own  railing. 
One  contains  the  flower-garden  proper,  with  small  square  beds, 
the  like  of  which,  reproduced  with  all  attainable  accuracy,  you 
might  have  seen  at  Friar  Park  in  Sir  Frank  Crisp’s  days.  The 
second  square  probably  enclosed  a fountain. 

Elaborate  gardens — such  as  one  in  a French  miniature  in  a 
British  Museum  manuscript  of  the  Romance  of  the  Rose  (Harl. 
4425),  or  better  still  in  the  above-mentioned  Virgo  inter  Virgines 
at  Lisbon — ^were  divided  up  into  several  squares,  each  with  its 
low  wall  or  railing.  One  of  these  squares  contained  the  rectangular 
flower  beds,  another  a flowery  mead,  a third  an  orchard  with  a 
fountain.  The  fountain  might  be  replaced  by  a pool,  like  that  into 
which  Narcissus  gazes  in  the  same  Harleian  manuscript.  Many 
gardens  contained  a pavilion,  of  the  kind  called  a “ Gloriette.” 
In  these  pavilions  we  see  people  having  a good  time,  and  there  is 
generally  a table  covered  with  a cloth  and  light  refreshments, 
not  excluding  jugs  of  wine.  Early  sixteenth  century  miniatures 
of  the  Binnink  and  allied  schools  contain  plenty  of  gardens  of 
the  type  we  have  been  considering,  but  no  novelties.  The 
enclosures  tend  to  grow  larger  ; that  is  all.  Even  so  late  as  the 
seventeenth  century,  examples  survive,  as,  for  instance,  in  the 
outer  bailey  of  the  Castle  of  Saarbriicken,  shown  in  one  of 
Merian’s  etchings.  It  is  a fifteenth  century  garden  in  all  but 
scale. 

It  would  seem,  then,  that  truthfully  depicted  garden  back- 
grounds were  first  introduced  by  Bouts.  At  all  events,  it  is  the 
followers  of  Bouts  who  first  gave  them  vogue,  and  the  best  of 
them  were  painted  at  Haarlem.  That  town  was  destined  to 
become,  and  still  in  our  own  day  remains,  a great  horticultural 
centre.  Its  fame  arose  with  the  introduction  of  the  tulip,  but 
the  fact  that  the  cultivation  of  that  blazing  bulb  was  so  keenly 
pursued  in  the  Haarlem  district  is  proof  that  horticulture  had 
already  taken  a firm  hold  upon  the  well-to-do  burghers  settled 
thereabout.  In  these  Haarlem  pictures  we  may  trace  the  first 
beginnings  of  the  garden  development  which  was  to  follow,  just 
as  the  Haarlem  School  was  also  the  forerunner  of  the  wonderful 


210 


SOME  DUTCHMEN 


painting-schools  that  were  to  flourish  in  Holland  in  the  seventeenth 
century.' 

Upward  of  thirty  years  ago,  I devoted  myself  to  serious  study 
of  the  woodcut  illustrations  in  books  printed  in  the  Netherlands 
in  the  fifteenth  century.  There  already  existed  a list  of  all  the 
known  publications,  and  I travelled  over  Europe  from  library  to 
library  till  an  example  of  each  had  passed  through  my  hands 
and  the  cuts  in  it  had  been  examined  and  catalogued.  The  result 
was  a volume  entitled  Woodcutters  of  the  Netherlands  (Cambridge, 
1884),  which  attracted  little  attention  when  it  was  published. 
The  bulk  of  the  small  edition  was,  I believe,  destroyed.  Now, 
when  students  want  it,  it  is  practically  unobtainable.  It  remains 
the  only  work  on  its  subject  and  is  not  likely  to  be  replaced.  The 
book  contains  one  rather  important  error  due  to  the  youth  and 
inexperience  of  the  author.  It  groups  the  cuts  under  woodcutters 
according  to  their  style,  whereas  it  ought  to  have  grouped  them 
under  designers.  The  poor  little  prints  seemed  to  me  so  rude  and 
amateurish  that  I could  not  believe  them  to  have  been  designed 
by  artists.  Many  of  the  simplest  may,  perhaps,  have  been  designed 
by  the  craftsmen  who  cut  them,  but  the  majority,  it  now  seems 
obvious  to  me,  must  have  been  drawn  on  the  blocks  by  artists 
and  degraded  in  the  cutting  by  unskilful  engravers.  With  the 
passage  of  time,  my  memory  of  the  subject  has  grown  dim  ; I 
am  disinclined  to  go  poring  into  a number  of  old  books  in  the 
library  of  the  British  Museum  merely  to  refresh  my  knowledge 
of  some  very  feeble  works  of  art.  A few  of  the  more  important 
groups  of  cuts  are,  however,  fairly  distinct  in  my  memory,  and 
among  them  I can  easily  recall  those  assembled  together  as 
by  “ the  Second  Delft  Woodcutter.”  Their  peculiar  hideousness 
made  them  memorable.  How  I loathed  them  ! Reproductions 
of  a few  of  them  are  at  hand,  and  it  is  now  evident  enough  to  me 
that  it  was  not  the  designer  but  the  woodcutter  who  was  at  fault. 
If  we  could  see  the  original  drawings  they  would  probably  be  found 
quite  meritorious.  The  dates  of  the  first  appearances  of  the  blocks 

^ It  is  worth  mention  that  the  earliest  known  publication  on  gardens  issued  in  the 
Netherlands  was  a poem  by  Columella,  entitled  De  Cultura  Hortorum,  printed  by  J.  de 
Breda  at  Deventer  in  1486  or  1487 — ^just  the  time  when  gardens  were  finding  their  way 
into  the  backgrounds  of  pictures. 


THE  VIRGO  MASTER 


211 


lie  between  1483  and^bout  1492,  perhaps  later.  Dr.  Friedlander 
aeutely  noted  that  the  designer  of  these  cuts  worked  in  the 
style  of  an  easily  identifiable  artist,  who  painted  the  pictures 
which  have  been  grouped  together  by  him  under  the  invented 
name  of  the  “ Master  of  the  Virgo  inter  Virgines,”  whom  we 
may  call  the  Virgo  Master  for  short.  It  is  almost  impossible  to 
resist  the  conclusion  that  designer  and  painter  were  one  and  the 
same  individual.'  No  less  than  sixteen  pictures  have  been  assigned 
with  some  confidence  to  him,^  and  to  these  we  must  briefly  attend. 

It  is  obvious  that  an  artist  who  was  at  work  at  Delft  by  1483 
cannot  have  been  a pupil  of  Geertgen  van  St.  Jans,  who  can  scarcely 
have  been  born  before  1465.  Resemblances  that  may  be  found 
between  their  work  are  due  either  to  a common  medium  or  to 
the  influence  of  one  of  them  upon  the  other.  The  Virgo  Master 
must  have  been  the  senior  and  must  be  dealt  with  first.  Whether 
he  went  to  Haarlem  and  studied  under  Ouwater,  or  where  he  picked 
up  his  education,  cannot  now  be  affirmed.  An  Adoration  of  the 
Shepherds,  which  was  in  the  de  Somzee  Collection,  may  be  his 
earliest  surviving  work  and  seems  to  negative  the  teaching  of 
Ouwater.  If  other  pictures  of  a local  Delft  School  had  been  pre- 
served we  might  have  found  features  of  similarity  in  them.  As  it  is, 
this  picture  stands  alone  with  marked  peculiarities  and  some  virtues 
of  undiscoverable  pedigree.  The  Child  lies  in  the  manger  like  an 
image  on  a tray,  and  there  are  many  other  awkward  features,  but 
the  Virgin  is  a sweetly  imagined  personage,  well  matched  by  the 
man  who  leans  over  behind  her:  Quaintly  round-headed  and 

shy  shepherd  boys  kneel  in  the  midst,  and  a group  of  thin-necked, 
jutting-chinned  angels  hover  aloft.  The  bewildered  ox  and  the 
astonished  ass,  with  his  high  human  forehead  and  erected  ears, 
are  not  for  a moment  to  be  forgotten.  They  are  comic  to  a degree. 
In  fact,  the  whole  picture  is  comic  to  us,  but  evidently  without 
any  intention  of  the  artist  to  make  it  so.  He  went  to  work  in 
all  conceivable  good  faith,  and  this  was  the  best  he  could  make  of 
the  subject.  How  in  the  world  he  came  to  invent  such  postures 

' An  equally  important  or  even  better  artist  must  have  designed  the  woodcuts 
characteristic  of  the  press  of  Bellaert  of  Haarlem. 

* See  Friedlander’s  list  in  the  Berlin  Jahrbuch,  1910,  part  ii,  to  which  a picture  in  the 
J.  G.  Johnson  Collection  (No.  349)  has  to  be  added. 


212 


SOME  DUTCHMEN 


for  those  elfin  roundheads  is  hard  to  imagine,  but  there  they  are, 
and  we  would  not  have  them  changed  on  any  account. 

This  artist  was,  in  fact,  a very  serious  person,  with  a tragic 
element  in  him,  as  a picture  in  the  Liverpool  Gallery  shows.  It 
depicts  the  dead  body  of  Christ  borne  toward  the  grave  by  His 
friends.  We  have  seen  many  examples  of  this  subject  treated  by 
other  Netherlands  artists,  always  with  a quantity  of  accompanying 
detail — flowers  in  the  grass,  trees,  a distant  town,  fields,  hills, 
and  what  not.  Here  are  neither  flowers  nor  grass  nor  any  amenities, 
but  bare  and  desolate  ground  broken  into  desert  lumps,  treeless, 
waterless,  lifeless  ; only  a narrow  glimpse  showing  afar  off  the 
world  of  men.  It  is  a place  of  death,  of  tombs  and  solitude, 
whither  only  the  dead  come  and  whence  they  that  bring  them 
hasten  away.  The  people  are  almost  as  strange  as  the  place — 
folk  with  hollow  cheeks,  worn  with  sorrow.  There  is  nothing 
of  tradition  about  it  all.  The  artist’s  own  vision  has  beheld  it 
thus  and  set  it  down  as  best  he  could.  It  is  strange  in  such  a 
picture  to  find  so  rich  a costume  as  that  of  Nicodemus,  or  the 
jewelled  headdresses  of  the  Maries.  There  is,  in  fact,  a curious 
mingling  here  of  primitive  and  decadent.  Soon  the  decadent  was 
to  triumph  with  Engebrechtsen  and  Jacob  van  Oostsanen,  though 
not  for  long.  Holland  came  relatively  late  into  the  field.  The 
flowering  time  of  Flemish  art  was  almost  over  before  the  Dutch 
school  was  firmly  established.  It  had  not  time  to  become  inde- 
pendent before  the  decadence  of  mediaeval  art  set  in,  so  that 
the  second  generation  of  Dutch  painters  was  affected  by  the  failure 
which  was  overtaking  all  the  mediaeval  schools.  Primitivism  and 
decadence  were  here  almost  simultaneous. 

The  severity,  the  abnegation  of  all  extraneous  detail,  which 
mark  the  Liverpool  picture  also  characterize  an  Annunciation  in 
the  Museum  at  Aix-la-Chapelle.  It  is  happening  in  a room,  we 
must  suppose,  but  all  we  are  shown  is  a bed  in  the  background, 
a rest  for  the  Virgin’s  prayer-book,  and  a pot  for  a flower.  The 
attention  must  not  be  withdrawn  from  the  personages  engaged. 
Their  draperies,  which  are  very  expressive — the  Virgin’s  so  straight 
and  reposeful,  the  angel’s  in  a flutter — tell  the  artist’s  tale.  All 
the  story  is  in  them,  and  they  suffice.  I will  not  delay  over  the 
Crucifixions  in  the  Uffizi  and  the  Glitza  Collection  (Hamburg) 


THE  VIRGO  MASTER 


213 


which  this  master  was  made  to  paint.  A demand  for  ghastly  and 
populous  Crucifixions  marks  the  close  of  the  Gothic  epoch  and 
the  coming  of  the  Renaissance,  especially  in  Germany.  They 
possess  none  of  the  old  symbolism  and  dignity,  but  are  mere 
exhibitions  of  blackguardism  below  and  frightfulness  above. 
We  tm-n  from  them  to  more  profitable  objects  of  contemplation. 
A Magi  altar-piece  in  Salzburg  Museum  ^ and  two  Adorations 
at  Berlin — of  the  Shepherds  in  the  Kaufmann  Collection,  of  the 
Magi  in  the  Museum — show  our  artist  in  his  most  developed  stage. 
He  has  overcome  many  of  his  early  troubles  with  composition. 
He  is  able  to  draw  better  and  to  tell  his  story  no  less  well.  His 
types  have  become  slenderer  ; his  art  remains  aloof  and  a little 
weird.  At  no  time  did  he  grow  to  be  a great  master,  but  he  justified 
his  existence,  not  alone  by  leaving  a problem  for  Friedlander  to 
solve,  but  by  painting  pictures  which  it  is  worth  while  to  preserve 
for  their  own  sake  and  the  interest  we  can  still  take  in  them  after 
four  and  a half  centuries.* 

1 Onze  Kunsi,  xi  (1909),  p.  73,  with  reproduction.  Another  Magi  triptych  in  the 
Flehite  Collection  at  Amersfoort  is  in  his  style  ; as  it  was  set  up  in  memory  of  a man  who 
died  in  1526  it  must  be  the  work  of  a follower. 

2 An  important  anonymous  Dutch,  probably  Haarlem,  Master  working  at  this  time 
painted  about  the  year  1480  a large  and  populous  picture  of  the  Adoration  of  the  Magi, 
for  some  years  in  the  hands  of  Messrs.  Sully,  of  Bond  Street.  The  picture  is  brightly 
coloured  after  the  manner  of  a stained-glass  window.  It  is  of  unusual  composition,  the 
train  of  the  kings,  divided  into  two  parts  and  filling  the  background  on  either  side,  con- 
sisting of  horsemen  in  violent  activity.  The  Virgin,  under  a sort  of  emblematic  building 
in  the  midst,  open  on  all  foxir  sides,  is  of  Dutch  type,  remotely  simOar  to  Geertgen’s. 
Elements  that  recall  the  early  work  of  Gerard  David  also  obtrude  themselves.  The  artist 
is  a venturesome  rather  than  an  able  draughtsman,  and  may  easily  be  recognized  by  the 
peculiarly  stiff  upper  lips  of  almost  every  one  of  his  faces.  It  is  improbable  that  so 
solid  and  for  his  place  and  day  so  capable  a painter  should  be  represented  by  only  one 
surviving  picture,  and  that  of  such  exceptional  dimensions. 


CHAPTER  XVI 


GEERTGEN  VAN  SINT  JANS 

Geertgen  van  Sint  Jans  is,  after  Bouts,  the  most  important 
and  most  interesting  Dutch  artist  of  the  fifteenth  century.  He 
was  born  at  Leyden  and  became  a pupil  of  Albert  van  Ouwater 
at  Haarlem.  We  know  neither  the  year  of  his  birth  nor  of  his 
death,  but  only  that  he  was  28  years  old  when  he  died.  It 
is  related,  perhaps  fabled,  that  Diirer  said  of  him  “ here  was  a 
born  painter.”  Evidently  painting  came  naturally  to  him  like 
music  to  a “ prodigy.”  Van  Mander  is  our  authority  for  what  is 
known  about  his  short  life.  He  says  that  “ little  Gerard  ” lived 
with  the  knights  of  St.  John  at  Haarlem,  whence  he  acquired 
his  surname.  There  he  painted  a triptych  with  the  Crucifixion 
in  the  centre.  This  and  one  of  the  wings  perished  in  the  religious 
troubles,  but  the  other  wing,  now  sliced  into  two  separate  panels, 
front  and  back,  is  in  the  Gallery  at  Vienna.  These  pictures  are 
the  starting-point  for  our  knowledge  of  the  artist’s  style ; but 
here  it  will  be  more  convenient  to  accept  the  results  arrived  at  by 
the  consensus  of  many  critics  and  proceed  to  the  consideration 
of  Geertgen’s  work  as  a whole  without  retracing  the  steps  of 
pioneers. 

Perhaps  the  earliest  of  his  surviving  pictures  is  a little  diptych 
at  Brunswick,  with  the  Virgin,  Child,  and  St.  Anne  on  one  wing, 
a donor  and  St.  Barbara  on  the  other,  and  saints  on  the  back. 
The  two  front  subjects  form  a single  picture  and  ought  to  show 
the  influence  of  the  young  artist’s  master  if  that  is  to  be  seen  in 
any  work  of  his.  What  leaps  to  the  eye  is  the  resemblance  of 
the  background  to  the  backgrounds  of  the  Sibyl  Master.  Nothing 
could  be  more  obvious.  From  him,  then,  we  should  say  Geertgen 
must  have  learned  ; and  it  is  recorded  that  he  was  Ouwater’s 
pupil.  Here,  then,  is  another  argument  for  the  identity  of  Ouwater 
and  the  Sibyl  Master.  It  will  be  remembered  that  in  the  Sibyl 

214 


HIS  EARLY  PICTURES 


215 


picture  there  is  an  opening  or  water-gate  to  the  moat.  It  is  a 
feature  that  we  find  in  two  paintings  by  Geertgen.  The  Sibyl 
Master  is  the  first  to  introduce  storks.  Geertgen  also  brings 
them  in.  The  bearded  man  on  the  right  in  the  Sibyl  picture 
becomes  one  of  Geertgen’s  favourite  types  {vide  both  the  Amsterdam 
pictures)  ; and  so  we  might  go  on,  but  the  reader  can  make  such 
comparisons  for  himself.  Friedlander  finds  a resemblance  between 
the  donor-half  of  the  Brunswick  diptych  and  Peter  Christus.  It 
is  obvious  in  St.  Barbara,  yet  she  is  no  less  like  the  Virgin  in 
Ouwater’s  Lazarus  ; as  for  the  kneeling  donor  we  have  none 
by  Ouwater  with  which  to  couple  him,  nor  any  proof  that  the 
Christus  influence  did  not  reach  Geertgen  through  Ouwater.  How 
else  could  it  have  reached  him  ? There  is  no  suggestion  that  he 
ever  left  Holland.  For  the  work  of  a youth  the  diptych  is  remark- 
ably good — excellent  in  composition,  balance,  and  the  suggestion 
of  space  and  air,  well  drawn,  with  a delightful  landscape.  The 
pupil  equals  the  master  from  the  start.  Those  who  accept  as 
Geertgen’s  the  Nativity  at  Amsterdam  (950b)  will  have  to  assign 
it  also  to  this  early  period. 

The  Prague  triptych  comes  next,  an  Adoration  of  the  Magi 
with  donors  and  their  saints  on  the  wings,  and  another  walled 
garden  with  raised  bank  all  round,  the  parent  of  the  sunk  gardens 
which  were  to  perpetuate  the  mediaeval  type  down  to  our  own  day. 
He  that  wanders  westward  in  Kensington  Gardens  will  find  the 
like,  somewhat  more  developed.  The  Magi  group  does  not  escape 
the  influence  of  Van  der  Weyden,  but  it  is  an  influence  merely  of 
type,  indirect  and  remote.  The  peopled  background  is  Geertgen’s 
own.  There  were  plenty  of  peopled  backgrounds  before,  but  not 
like  this.  The  prolific  freedom  of  invention  here  shown  is  new. 
The  figures  live  ; they  have  things  to  do  ; they  animate  the  street. 
Away  off  is  a man  on  horseback  who  reminds  me  of  the  St.  Martin 
in  the  J.  G.  Johnson  Collection.  That  picture  has  been  boldly, 
but  not  impossibly,  ascribed  to  little  Gerard.  Some  of  the  figures 
in  the  Prague  triptych  are  very  original.  Such  is  the  man  in  the 
long  cloak  who  turns  his  back  on  us.  A boy’s  head,  just  over 
the  shoulder  of  the  Moorish  king,  is  a new  type,  with  the  light  upon 
it  and  the  soft  hair.  Heads  like  this  are  in  that  entertaining 
triptych  in  the  National  Gallery,  which  shows  a church  lit  up 


216 


GEERTGEN  VAN  SINT  JANS 


internally  with  a yellow  glow.  Friedlander  has  attributed  it  and 
a few  other  less  good  pictures  to  the  Master  of  the  Morrison  triptych, 
but  it  is  little  more  than  a copy  after  some  lost  Geertgen  of  excellent 
quality.  The  two  women  walking  in  the  wood  in  the  background 
of  the  left  wing  are  a reminiscence  of  the  Sibyl  Master’s  Madonna. 
Another  woman  of  the  kind  is  in  the  courtyard  in  a curious  picture 
attributed  to  the  early  Leyden  School  in  Amsterdam  Museum  (43a). 

A strange  picture  by  Geertgen  at  Amsterdam  is  that  in  which 
all  the  kinsfolk  of  the  Virgin  are  brought  together  within  the 
nave  of  a church,  the  children  squatting  on  the  floor  or  reaching 
out  to  one  another  from  their  mothers’  laps,  while  in  the  back- 
ground before  the  choir-screen  groups  of  men  talk  together  and 
a youthful  servitor  is  lighting  the  candles  high  above  the  altar. 
The  altar  itself,  too,  is  peculiar,  for  there  is  a group  of  sculpture 
actually  on  it — Abraham  about  to  slay  Isaac— and  these  coloured 
wooden  figures  are  as  real  as  the  living  personages,  differing  only 
from  them  in  scale.  The  slender  marble  columns  and  carved 
capitals  obviously  came  from  Ouwater,  and  so  does  that  love  of 
landscape  which  caused  the  painter  to  introduce  and  open  a pair 
of  most  unlikely  doors  at  the  east  end  of  the  north  aisle,  so  that 
grass  and  trees  might  be  seen.  There  is  no  effect  of  interior 
illumination  any  more  than  in  Ouwater’s  Lazarus  ; a studio  light 
reveals  the  figures.  The  types  are  now  all  definitely  Geertgen’s 
own,  those  that  he  was  to  adhere  to  for  the  rest  of  his  few  days — 
quaint  people  of  puritanical  aspect,  like  “ pensive  nuns,  devout  and 
pure,  sober,  steadfast,  and  demure  ” ; but  the  children  have  a new 
and  more  solid  humanity  than  those  found  in  Brussels  or  Bruges — 
sturdy  little  ruffians  with  eager  movements  and  stodgy,  expression- 
less faces.  The  nameless  Westphalian  who  painted  a group  of  the 
same  Holy  Kindred,  which  forms  the  centre  of  a triptych  in  the 
Wiesen  Church  at  Soest,  must  have  had  this  picture  in  mind 
and  may  have  learned  his  art  from  Geertgen. 

Another  Adoration  of  the  Magi,  at  Amsterdam,  shows  our 
artist’s  rapid  growth  in  grace — an  easier  composition,  a more 
assured  touch,  but  the  eyes  still  staring  after  the  fashion  caught 
from  Ouwater.  A perfectly  beautiful  bit  of  nature  illuminates 
the  foreground  of  the  landscape.  It  is  a reed-margined  pool  of  still 
water,  with  flags  in  blossom,  and  a crane  on  a tiny  island.  The 


EXTENDED  LANDSCAPE 


217 


skill  of  touch,  the  sense  of  beauty,  not  merely  in  the  thing  but  in 
the  rendering  of  the  thing,  the  admirable  arrangement  of  unadver- 
tised detail — all  these  merits  were  Geertgen’s  own  contribution 
to  the  art  of  his  day,  not  the  result  of  any  master’s  teaching. 

We  thus  come  in  orderly  sequence  to  what  is  perhaps  Geertgen’s 
most  attractive  work,  the  St.  John  Baptist,  not  so  much  in  a wilder- 
ness as  in  a park.  The  pieture  slipped  through  Christie’s  for 
a trifle  on  Aseot  Cup  day  and  a few  years  later  was  snapped  up 
by  the  alert  director  of  the  Berlin  Museum.  It  is  not  the  pensive 
Saint  who  pleases  us,  though  he  is  well  enough  ; still  less  is  it  his 
very  formal  and  very  primitive  lamb,  apparently  stuffed  as  well 
as  nimbed  ; but  it  is  the  beautiful  wide-spreading  landscape  that 
holds  our  attention,  its  glades  and  trees,  and  the  sunlit  towers 
of  a eastle  peeping  up  in  the  distanee.  The  trees  are  painted 
with  a novel  and  pieturesque  touch  which  is  in  itself  both  decorative 
and  suggestive  of  natural  form  and  only  appears  in  this  instance. 
Sueh  park-like  vistas  as  here  we  behold  were  not,  however,  entirely 
novel.  Something  of  the  same  kind  had  been  depicted  by  Bouts  in 
his  Paradise  at  Lille  and  by  Van  der  Goes  in  the  Fall  at  Vienna. 
Memling  at  about  this  same  time  was  introdueing  park-like  land- 
scapes behind  some  of  his  portraits,  and  notably  as  baekground 
to  his  Virgo  inter  Virgines  in  the  Louvre,  a feature  imitated  by 
an  unidentified  follower  in  the  picture  of  the  same  subjeet  whieh 
is  in  Buekingham  Palace.  Geertgen  can  hardly  have  seen  any 
of  these  works,  though  he  may  have  heard  of  the  Bouts  from  one 
of  that  painter’s  Duteh  pupils.  Probably  this  landseape  is  alto- 
gether his  own  idea,  but  we  must  remember  that,  aecording  to 
Van  Mander,  Ou water  was  famed  for  important  innovations  in 
landscape  painting,  and  Geertgen’s  indebtedness  to  him  on  that 
seore  can  only  be  guessed.  At  all  events,  here  we  have  a remarkable 
and  extended  landscape  whieh  surpasses  all  of  those  above- 
mentioned  and  foretells  Patinir  and  others  who  were  to  eome. 
It  does  not  laek  for  detail  : flowers,  birds  (a  wagtail,  a erane,  and 
others),  rabbits,  deer,  a little  brook,  a pond,  and  beyond  the  nearer 
trees  a blue  distance  and  hills  in  three  grades  of  tone  with  the  white 
and  light-blue  sky  over  all.  Mediaeval  traditions  linger  in  the 
mounded  earth,  but  the  general  effeet  of  the  whole  must  in  its 
day  have  been  ultra-modern. 


218 


GEERTGEN  VAN  SINT  JANS 


The  Resurrection  of  Lazarus  in  the  Louvre  and  the  two  Vienna 
panels  must  be  accounted  among  the  latest  works  of  the  young 
master.  They  show  a wonderful  maturity  when  considered  as 
the  output  of  a youth  in  his  twenties.  How  much  better  he 
tells  his  tale  than  Ouwater  ! Compare  Peter  here,  bending  forward 
astonished  and  almost  incredulous,  with  the  second-rate  showman 
in  Albert’s  painting  at  Berlin.  There  is  just  a reminiscence  of 
that  work  in  the  two  Maries,  for  instance,  and  the  group  of  Jews. 
Look  at  the  brocaded  individual  with  his  hand  behind  him  who 
turns  his  back  on  us.  The  fat-faced  Pharisee  on  the  left  is  a 
novel  type;  I have  sometimes  wondered  whether  Andrea  Solario 
saw  him  and  took  note.  A dimly  surviving  memory  of  the  Sibyl 
Master  lingers  in  the  background,  but  how  little  this  youth  owes 
to  anyone  compared  with  the  great  flood  of  original  power  that 
welled  up  within  himself ! The  portrait  of  the  donor  is  as  fine 
as  any  Van  der  Goes  could  have  painted,  a dignified  and  able 
personage,  contrasting  strangely  with  the  cowering  little  female 
on  the  opposite  side,  who  seems  to  wish  she  had  never  been  born. 

John  the  Baptist  reappears  on  one  of  the  Vienna  panels,  but 
in  the  form  of  bones  which  the  Emperor  Julian  the  Apostate  is 
causing  to  be  burnt.  The  picture  is  rather  a chaos  of  people  and 
incidents  arbitrarily  divided  from  one  another  by  such  unnatural 
humps  and  lumps  of  ground  and  rocks  as  Memling  was  to  use  for 
a like  ill  purpose.  But  we  forget  the  weakness  in  presence  of  the 
group  of  portraits  of  the  Knights  of  St.  John  at  Haarlem,  among 
whom  Geertgen  lived  and  for  whom  he  painted  the  altar-piece. 
Friedlander  puts  the  date  of  it  to  about  1493.  If  that  is  accepted, 
Ouwater  to  be  his  master  must  have  lived  on  to  the  eighties  of  the 
fifteenth  century,  which  is  not  impossible,  even  if  he  was  born  as 
early  as  1420.  But  to  return  to  the  portraits.  Observe  the  grave 
individual  who  stands  in  front,  gesturing  with  the  horizontal 
left  hand.  The  same  gesture  is  characteristic  of  a portrait  in 
the  J.  G.  Johnson  Collection,  which  is  dated  1489,  and  preserves 
the  likeness  of  Peter  Veenlant,  “ Consul  Schiedamensis.”  The 
rendering  of  the  face  is  entirely  in  accord  with  the  attribution 
of  this  fine  portrait  to  Geertgen.  That  he  was  already  feeling  his 
way  toward  the  more  vivid  and  dramatic  style,  which  the  next 
generation  of  Dutch  painters  was  to  carry  to  exaggeration,  is 


HIS  RAPID  PROGRESS 


219 


demonstrated  by  the  group  of  Julian  and  his  courtiers.  That  was 
a road  which  Geertgen  travelled  safely,  as  did  Lucas  van  Leyden. 
The  two  geniuses  almost  touch  one  another  at  this  point. 

More  successful  as  a pictorial  whole  is  the  other  side  of  the 
wing,  where  the  dead  Christ  is  being  mourned  by  His  friends. 
It  was  a subject  which  at  that  time  almost  every  painter  had  to 
treat  for  some  patron  or  other,  but  none  of  little  Gerard’s  prede- 
cessors or  contemporaries  attained  his  measure  of  success.  Here 
the  pathos  of  the  scene  is  felt  and  transmitted.  Roger  counts 
for  something  in  the  composition.  There  is  his  Magdalen  wringing 
her  hands,  but  how  much  more  credibly  here  ! All  howling  and 
hysterics  are  banished,  but  a deep  feeling  is  expressed  and  each 
displays  it  according  to  his  kind.  Moreover,  the  figures  are  put 
together  with  a skill  that  completely  hides  itself,  so  naturally 
do  they  occupy  their  places.  The  pyramidal  group  in  the  centre 
with  the  upright  supports  on  either  hand  did  not  come  by  chance. 

A word  must  be  said  about  the  Nativity  in  the  Kaufmann 
Collection,  which  astonishes  by  the  emphasis  of  its  chiaroscuro. 
Earlier  attempts  had  been  made,  even  as  far  back  as  by  the 
de  Limbourgs,  to  paint  night.  Bouts,  as  we  saw,  made  an  experi- 
ment. But  here  is  real  darkness,  cloven  by  the  miraculous  light 
that  strikes  upward  from  the  Child,  illuminates  the  Virgin  and  the 
angels,  and  even  dimly  reveals  the  face  of  poor  Joseph  in  the 
corner. ‘ It  is  not  exactly  done  as  Rembrandt  would  have  done  it, 
but  the  problem  which  Rembrandt  solved  is  here  posed,  and, 
knowing  what  we  do,  we  can  see  that  Geertgen  not  only  posed 
it  but  made  a long  stride  toward  the  solution.  As  to  other  pictures 
attributed  to  our  artist,  a bare  mention  of  some  must  suffice. 
There  is  a half-length  Madonna  in  the  Hollitscher  Collection, 
another  in  the  Ambrosian  Library  at  Milan,  and  a powerfully 
tragic  Man  of  Sorrows  at  Utrecht — a painful  but  wonderful  picture. 
We  must  also  remember  the  view  of  St.  Bavon’s  at  Haarlem,  a 
painting  mentioned  by  Van  Mander ; if,  as  generally  supposed,  it 
is  the  picture  now  in  that  very  church,  it  is  a formal  architectural 
perspective.  Similar  pictures  of  St.  Lawrence’s  at  Alkmaar  and 
St.  Peter’s  at  Leyden  are  known,  but  they  make  no  claim  to  a 
distinguished  parentage. 

^ This  effect  was  imitated  by  Jan  Joest,  Mabuse,  and  Barthel  Bruyn. 


220 


GEERTGEN  VAN  SINT  JANS 


The  number  of  Geertgen’s  followers  was  considerable,  far  greater 
than  can  possibly  have  been  the  number  of  pupils  of  an  artist  who 
died  at  the  age  of  28.  Among  those  whom  he  influenced  were 
Jacob  Cornelis  van  Oostsanen,  Jan  Mostaert,  Jan  Joest  of  Calcar, 
and  Gerard  David. 

A few  words  will  suffice  to  dismiss  an  anonymous  follower  of 
Geertgen  who  is  known  by  the  more  than  ordinarily  awkward 
name  “ the  Amsterdam  Lucia  Master.”  It  would  save  a lot  of 
annoyance  if  these  nameless  folk  could  be  provisionally  christened 
Jones,  Meyer,  or  the  like,  till  their  true  names  are  discovered  ; 
but  scientific  students  all  the  world  over  are  incredibly  bad  at 
naming  anything,  whether  it  be  a flower,  a bug,  or  a mountain. 
Look  at  the  names  on  the  map  of  a newly  explored  region  ! Only 
the  ignorant  can  name  nowadays.  This  Lucia  person — who 
must  not  be  confused  with  another  Bruges -Lucia-Master — ^was 
a very  poor  painter.  Any  merit  to  be  found  in  his  pictures  comes 
straight  from  his  master.  Beside  the  panel  in  the  Amsterdam 
Gallery,  from  which  he  draws  his  lumbering  designation,  he  is 
also  endowed  with  a Crucifixion  in  the  Archiepiscopal  Museum 
at  Utrecht  and  a Descent  from  the  Cross  in  the  Figdor  Collection 
at  Vienna,  all  uninteresting. 

By  a different,  far  better  painter  is  a picture  at  Dresden,  which 
shows  the  interior  of  a delightful  Gothic  room.  It  has  the  nicest 
kind  of  a tiled  floor,  and  it  is  divided  into  two  bays,  one  groined, 
the  other  floored  overhead  with  beams.  There  is  a hooded  fireplace 
and  three  sorts  of  windows  with  armorial  glass,  and  though  the 
furniture  is  sparse  what  there  is  would  gladden  a collector’s  heart. 
I should  choose  the  bench  with  the  linen-fold  back  on  which  the 
Virgin  sits,  and  I should  expect  the  brocaded  cloth  over  its  back 
to  be  thrown  in.  The  reader  may  have  St.  Anne’s  armchair. 
Both  of  them  will  be  nicer  to  look  at  than  to  sit  on,  but  every  modern 
house  contains  enough  seats  of  which  the  reverse  is  true.  The 
room  is  full  of  light,  and  the  picture  as  a whole  is  charming. 
The  light  enters  through  the  windows  and  fades  in  the  shadowed 
corners.  It  is  not  a mere  studio  light  enveloping  a group,  after- 
wards framed  or  backed  by  the  structure  of  a church  or  chamber. 
That  was  the  best  that  Ouwater  and  even  Geertgen  could  make 
of  such  a subject.  This  artist,  therefore,  was  not  a mere  follower. 


PLATE  X 


2.  THE  VIP.GO  iUASTER.  ENTOMBMENT. 
JMVEHPOOL.— p.  212. 


1 . THE  VIRGO  .MASTER  OF  DELFT.  NATIVITY. 

p.  211. 


3.  GEERTGEN  VAN  SINT  J.VNS.  THE  VIRGIN’S  1.  DUTCH  SCHOOL.  HOLY  FA:\HLA'.  DRESDEN. 
KINDRED.  .\.MSTERDA.M.— p.  216.  p.  220. 


I To  face  page  220. 


HIS  FOLLOWERS 


221 


but  an  innovator,  a painter  of  some  importance.  From  his  hand 
came  also  two  half-length  groups  of  the  Virgin  and  Child  with 
St.  Anne,  one  in  Utrecht  Museum,  the  other  sold  in  the  Stein  auction 
in  1899  and  later  in  the  Michel  van  Gelder  Collection.  Both  paint- 
ings are  thought  to  show  the  influence  of  the  Delft  Virgo  Master. 
They  are  admirable  works  in  their  simple  fashion,  and  fully  confirm 
the  favourable  impression  made  by  the  Dresden  panel.  Let  us 
hope  that  more  pictures  by  this  important  artist  may  hereafter 
be  identified. 

Another  excellent  painting  of  the  primitive  Dutch  School 
is  in  that  assemblage  of  interesting  works,  the  J.  G.  Johnson 
Collection,  one  of  the  few  American  galleries  gathered  on  the 
principle  of  buying  good  pictures  without  regard  to  names.  On 
the  panel  in  question  is  painted  a representation  of  John  the  Baptist 
pointing  out  Christ  to  his  disciples.  The  landscape  and  the  feeling 
show  indebtedness  to  Geertgen,  and  here  again  it  seems  that  other 
pictures  by  this  same  painter  must  be  forthcoming.  He  should 
easily  be  recognizable  by  the  sharply  pointed,  naked  feet  of  his 
men.  One  could  prick  oneself  on  their  great  toes  ! 

A seated  Virgin  in  Berlin  Museum,  with  a kneeling  ecclesiastic 
before  her  presented  by  St.  Michael,  was  exhibited  at  Utrecht 
Exhibition  (No.  176)  in  1913.  It  is  a picture  possessing  many 
agreeable  qualities,  the  St.  Michael  being  of  original  type  and 
unconventionally  introduced.  Cohen  says  that  its  nameless  painter 
was  also  the  author  of  a triptych  with  an  enthroned  Virgin  at 
Antwerp  (Nos.  561-3)  with  St.  Christopher  and  St.  George  on  the 
wings,  and  of  an  Assumption  in  the  Provincial  Museum  at  Bonn.^ 
But  enough  about  these  nameless  craftsmen.  Famous  artists 
summon  our  attention  elsewhere.^ 

1 Cohen  in  Zeits.  f.  b.  Kunst,  1913-14,  part  ii. 

* Other  works  more  or  less  close  to  Geertgen  are  : — 

Descent  from  the  Cross,  Munich,  Nos.  84-5. 

Crucifixion,  Modena,  No.  33. 

Crucifixion,  Cologne  Museum. 

Ecce  Homo,  a pen-drawing  in  Berlin  K.F.M. 

St.  James,  Emden  Sale  (Berlin,  1910). 

Betrayal  and  Entombment,  wings  in  the  Collection  of  Comte  de  Valencia 
de  San  Juan,  in  the  Museo  Archeologico,  Madrid. 


16 


CHAPTER  XVII 


HANS  MEMLING 

The  Duke  of  Devonshire’s  triptyeh,  painted  for  Sir  John  Donne 
about  1468,  is  the  earliest  identified  picture  by  Memling  that  can  be 
dated.  It  is  the  work  of  a mature  artist.  In  the  background  of 
the  dexter  wing  is  the  painter’s  own  portrait.  He  is  a man  about 
33  years  of  age.  Painting  and  portrait  are  in  agreement.  The 
beginnings  of  the  artist  must  lie  behind  this  mature  work.  We 
may  thus  conclude  that  he  was  born  about  1430-35,  and  that 
he  was  approximately  the  contemporary  of  Justus  of  Ghent  and 
Hugo  van  der  Goes.  The  form  of  his  Christian  name,  Hans,  proves 
him  to  have  been  a German.  Had  he  been  a Fleming  his  name 
would  have  been  Jan.  An  entry  in  the  diary  of  a Bruges  notary 
confirms  this  conclusion.  “ Oriendus  erat  Magunciaco,”  it  says. 
He  was,  in  fact,  born  in  the  principality  of  Mayence.  Momlingen  in 
that  diocese  may  have  been  the  place  from  which  he  took  his  name. 
He  must  have  come  early  to  the  Netherlands,  for  there  is  no  trace 
of  the  Germanic  style  in  his  art.  He  and  John  van  Eyck  are  the 
typical  Flemish  painters.  When  we  speak  of  Flemish  art  it  is  of 
the  work  of  those  two  men  we  first  think,  though  neither  of  them 
was  a Fleming  by  birth.  They  stand  for  the  Flemish,  just  as  Bouts 
and  his  followers  for  the  Dutch,  or  Campin  and  Roger  for  the 
Walloons.  It  is  not  therefore  possible  to  put  Memling’s  arrival  in 
the  Netherlands  later  than  about  his  twentieth  year,  say  in  1455. 
He  may  have  arrived  younger,  but  there  is  no  record  of  him  in 
Bruges  or  anywhere  else  before  1467,  so  we  have  to  guess  what  he 
may  have  been  doing  in  those  twelve  years  or  more,  where  was  he 
studying,  and  what  master  taught  him  his  craft.  A veil  hides  his 
beginnings  as  completely  as  those  of  Justus  and  Hugo.  Internal 
evidence  alone  can  decide.  Vasari  and  Guicciardini,  indeed,  tell  us 
that  he  was  a pupil  of  Roger  van  der  Weyden,  but  their  authority 

222 


HIS  ORIGIN 


223 


is  too  remote  to  be  valuable  in  face  of  the  fact  that  Memling’s 
pictures  show  no  such  intimate  relation  to  Roger’s  art  as  a long 
pupilage  would  be  likely  to  effect.  Memling  was  influenced  by  the 
work  of  Roger,  perhaps  by  contact  with  him,  but  can  hardly  have 
been  his  apprenticed  pupil.  He  was  likewise  strongly  influenced 
by  Bouts,  but  neither  can  Bouts  have  been  his  master.  We  know 
the  work  of  several  followers  of  Bouts.  The  seal  of  the  master 
is  indelibly  set  on  them.  Memling  received  no  such  stamp. 

There  comes  a moment  in  the  growth  of  every  style  of  art  when 
the  school  or  group  of  artists  who  adopt  and  practise  it  definitely 
emerges.  Before  that  emergence  we  meet  with  a succession  of 
individuals — men  of  marked  and  original  power,  such  as  the  Van 
Eycks  or  Campin — who,  in  the  endeavour  to  express  themselves, 
discover  and  manifest  the  principles  of  form  and  the  artistic  ideals 
which,  after  them,  become  the  common  heritage  and  property  of  a 
whole  group  of  their  successors.  Thus  far  we  have  been  for  the 
most  part  concerned  with  the  work  and  character  of  such  original, 
such  road-making,  artists.  But  most  of  the  young  painters  who 
began  their  active  career  after  the  middle  of  the  fifteenth  century 
lack  the  individualism  of  their  predecessors.  They  express  the 
ideal  of  a school  in  the  forms  and  methods  invented  and  perfected 
by  the  Van  Eycks,  Campin,  Roger,  and  Bouts.  The  trace  of  those 
leaders  may  be  observed  simultaneously  in  their  work.  Moreover, 
the  formed  Netherlandish  style  reigned  not  only  over  the  artists  of 
Flanders  and  Brabant,  but  over  those  also  of  the  neighbouring 
provinces,  including  an  area  within  the  modern  French  frontier. 

Let  us  turn  aside  for  a moment  to  examine  a set  of  pictures, 
illustrative  of  the  legend  of  St.  Bertin,  which  may  throw  some  light 
on  this  portion  of  our  subject.  They  decorate  the  shutters  which 
once  enclosed  the  shrine  of  the  Saint  in  his  abbey  at  St.  Omer. 
The  shrine  was  made  between  1453  and  1459  at  Valenciennes  to 
the  order  of  Abbot  William  Fillastre,  perhaps  by  the  goldsmith- 
brothers  Stechlin.  The  silver-work  disappeared  in  the  French 
Revolution,  but  the  panels  of  the  shutters  may  still  be  seen  in  the 
Berlin  Museum  and  the  National  Gallery.  They  are  so  beautifully 
painted  that  Rubens  declared  he  would  willingly  pay  for  ‘them 
as  many  gold  ducats  as  it  would  take  to  cover  them  The  several 
incidents  of  the  Saint’s  legend  are  divided  from  one  another  by 


224 


HANS  MEMLING 


architectural  openings  showing  various  interiors — a method  of 
division  afterwards  employed  by  Memling.  The  ineidents  are 
monastie  events  happening  within  a convent,  so  that  figures  of 
monks  predominate,  all  very  meek  and  humble  persons.  One  of 
them  resembles  Van  Eyck’s  portrait  of  the  Esquire  of  the  Order 
of  St.  Anthony  at  Berlin.  The  eonvent  expression  marks  the  faces 
of  even  the  few  laymen  in  the  piece.  A cloistered  atmosphere  is 
all-pervading.  The  landscape  is  as  gentle  and  suave  as  the  men, 
though  there  is  little  room  for  landscape  distances  or  background 
incidents.  A builder  or  two  at  work,  an  individual  seated  outside 
a castle’s  gate,  a ferry-boat  on  a calm  river,  and  some  tiny  dots  of 
men  very  far  away  are  all  we  can  see,  the  peace  of  the  later  after- 
noon being  upon  them  also  and  on  the  waters  and  the  slender 
pines  and  in  the  clear  sky.  Though  the  sun  must  be  shining  it 
casts  no  strong  shadows  ; nothing  is  strong  or  bold,  everything 
tender  and  peaceful.  An  interesting  feature  round  the  cloister  is 
the  wall-painting  of  the  Dance  of  Death,  of  whieh  we  eatch  two 
glimpses.  It  resembles  in  design  that  whereof  the  restored  wreck 
may  be  seen  at  St.  Mary’s,  Lubeck.  Young  lay -folks  are  walking  or 
sitting  comfortably  beneath  the  pieture,  untroubled  by  its  threaten- 
ings.  In  this  work  there  is  little  definite  trace  of  the  influence  of 
any  of  the  masters  we  have  studied,  but  the  atmosphere  is  that 
whieh  we  shall  presently  find  in  Memling’s  pietures,  though  the 
forms  are  not  his.  It  has  been  assumed  that  the  painter  of  these 
panels  must  have  been  Simon  Marmion  of  Valeneiennes,  who  was 
born  and  apparently  edueated  at  Amiens,  where  he  is  last  heard  of 
in  1454.  He  is  next  mentioned  in  1458,  when  we  find  him  in  eom- 
fortable  circumstanees  at  Valenciennes,  ergo  he  must  have  had  a 
good  commission  such  as  these  paintings.  The  trouble  is  that, 
though  Marmion  is  often  mentioned  and  praised  as  a miniaturist ; 
there  is  no  record  of  his  ever  painting  a picture.  He  was  certainly 
the  head  of  a prosperous  miniaturist’s  atelier,  and  several  eostly 
manuscripts  are  attributed  to  him  and  his  assistants.*  One,  at  any 
rate,  of  these  manuscripts  was  decorated  for  the  same  patron  who 
paid  for  the  shrine,  but  though  some  resemblance  can  be  traced 

1 See  Reinach  in  Gaz.  Beaux- Arts,  1903,  i,  p.  264;  Monuments  et  Memoires  Piot, 
1904  ; Winkler  in  the  Berlin  Jahrbuch,  1913,  pp.  251  ff. ; Renault  in  Revue  ArcheoL,  1907, 
p.  119,  and  1908,  p.  108  ; L.  de  Fourcaud  in  Rev.  de  Vart  one.  et  mod.,  1907,  p.  321. 


THE  ST.  BERTIN  MASTER 


225 


between  the  miniatures  and  the  above-mentioned  paintings  it  is 
not  of  a suffieiently  conclusive  quality  to  assure  the  attribution 
of  pictures  and  miniatures  to  the  same  hand. 

Attempts  have,  of  course,  been  made  to  group  with  the  St.  Bertin 
series  other  paintings,  more  or  less  resembling  them  in  style.  Thus 
there  is  in  the  Louvre  a picture  of  the  finding  and  identification 
of  the  True  Cross,  which  has  been  called  a late  work  by  Marmion. 
To  him  also  is  given  a Crucifixion  from  St.  Bertin’s  now  in  the  J.  G. 
Johnson  Collection  (No.  318),  and  another  in  the  Corsini  Gallery 
(No.  756).  A Christ  before  Herod  also  in  the  Johnson  Collec- 
tion (No.  763)  is  thought  to  belong  to  the  same  group,  to  which 
Friedlander  adds  a Mater  Dolorosa  and  a Man  of  Sorrows,  both  at 
Strasburg.  I do  not  feel  the  force  of  any  of  these  attributions. 
Nor  do  I think  that  an  interesting  picture  at  Chantilly  is  in  better 
case.  It  depicts  Charles  the  Rash  and  other  courtiers  carrying  into 
the  Church  of  Bouvignes  the  chasse  of  St.  Perpetua  after  it  had 
been  saved  from  the  sack  and  destruction  of  Dinant  in  1466 — a 
piece  of  “ frightfulness  ” which  stains  the  memory  of  the  prince 
for  all  time. 

Whoever  painted  the  St.  Bertin  panels  can  hardly  have  been 
entirely  educated  at  Amiens  in  the  years  around  1450.  No  known 
pictures  of  1450  or  thereabout  from  the  North  of  France  can  be 
classed  with  it.  It  was  only  in  or  near  Flanders  that  the  painting 
method  of  the  Van  Eycks  could  then  have  been  as  thoroughly 
acquired  as  it  was  by  this  master.  True,  he  shows  no  trace  of  the 
influence  of  Roger  or  of  Bouts,  but  that  proves  nothing.  There 
were  other  centres  of  art  in  the  South  Netherlands  of  which  we  are 
in  almost  complete  ignorance.  Valenciennes  more  probably  taught 
him  than  Amiens. 

A similar  but  more  refined  and  more  spontaneous  spiritual 
emotion  pervades  three  small  pictures,  illustrative  of  saints’  legends, 
all  painted  by  one  unidentified  artist.  Some  have  thought  him  to  be 
of  Bruges,  but  his  home  is  more  likely  to  have  been  on  the  soil  of 
what  is  now  France.  He  must  have  been  working  in  the  years  sur- 
rounding 1460,  but  even  as  to  his  date  there  are  differences  of  opinion. 
His  most  delightful  picture  is  a panel  belonging  to  Baron  Bethune 
(Alost),  on  which  is  painted  a white-robed  saint,  walking  barefoot 
through  a desert  or  wintry  region  along  a strip  of  pretty  carpet 


226 


HANS  MEMLING 


and  with  a bunch  of  roses  in  his  hand.  He  is  sueh  a eharming 
person,  so  simple  in  pose  and  sweet  in  expression,  and  heaven  only 
knows  whither  he  is  going  or  what  it  is  all  about.  There  are 
leafless  trees  here  and  there,  and  piled  unreal  roeks,  and  a great 
Romanesque  church  away  in  the  baekground.  It  is  all  white  and 
grey,  except  for  the  carpet  and  the  roses  and  the  clear  sky.  They 
call  it  St.  Bruno  retiring  to  the  Chartreuse,  but  the  subjeet  is  quite 
immaterial.  The  pieture  has  an  artistic  existence  of  its  own,  and  is 
a thing  essentially  beautiful,  whieh  renders  us  careless  as  to  whom 
or  what  it  is  intended  to  depict.  It  exists  as  a vision,  concrete, 
self-contained,  self-suffieing.  To  the  same  painter  are  attributed 
two  less  perfect  but  very  enjoyable  works,  both  likewise  quite 
small.  One  is  in  the  Brussels  Gallery  (No.  35),  the  other  in  the 
Van  de  Walle  Colleetion.^  In  both  we  see  a preacher  addressing  a 
small  eongregation.  Somewhat  of  the  same  quiet  eharm  lingers  in 
them  as  in  the  St.  Bruno,  biit  the  artist  shows  a singular  competence 
in  dealing  with  the  expressions  of  the  onlookers,  who  are  all  visibly 
though  quietly  affeeted  by  what  they  hear.  The  work  looks  per- 
fectly simple  and  easy;  no  elaboration  of  detail,  no  astonishing 
aspect  of  finish  to  make  a speetator  put  up  a lens,  but  an  admirable 
competence  throughout,  and  an  instinet  for  the  unity  and  deeora- 
tive  harmony  of  the  whole.  Was  he  a Flemish  painter  ? I think  not. 

In  eonnexion  with  the  origins  of  Memling,  another  word  may 
be  said  about  the  Chantilly  diptyeh  of  Jeanne  de  Bourbon.  It 
is  not  by  the  St.  Bertin  artist,  nor  of  his  sehool,  but  it  seems  to  be 
pervaded  by  a similar  atmosphere  in  so  far  as  the  dissimilarity  of 
subject  permits.  It  was  probably  painted  within  the  modern 
Freneh  border,  by  an  artist  in  whom  the  traditions  of  Campin  and 
Roger  were  alive,  but  there  is  in  it  an  element  derived  from  neither 
of  these  masters,  whieh  finds  expression  in  the  eharming  angel 
supporting  the  shield.  If  we  knew  where,  in  or  soon  after  the  year 
1460,  that  angel  was  painted,  we  should  know  where  to  look  for  the 
studio  from  whieh  Memling  emerged. 

Yet  another  pieture  of  about  the  same  date,  1459-62,  eannot  be 
neglected  when  we  are  discussing  the  origins  of  Memling.  It  is  the 
Sforza  triptyeh  in  the  Brussels  Gallery,  whieh  eame  from  the  Zam- 
beccari  Collection  at  Bologna,  and  has  been  already  referred  to  in 

1 Bruges  Exhibition  (1902),  No.  344. 


THE  SFORZA  TRIPTYCH 


227 


connexion  with  Roger  van  der  Weyden  and  the  Lombard  painter 
Zanetto  Bugatto.  The  date  of  the  central  panel  is  fixed  at  about 
1460-2  by  the  apparent  ages  of  Francesco  Maria  Sforza,  Bianca 
Visconti,  and  their  son  Galeazzo  Maria,  whose  portraits  appear 
upon  it.  The  central  panel  and  the  wings  are  by  different  hands, 
but  painted  at  approximately  the  same  time,  as  we  judge  from  the 
likeness  of  Duke  Philip  the  Good,  which  is  on  the  left  wing.  The 
centre-piece  was  obviously  done  in  the  studio  of  Roger  or  by  a 
pupil  deeply  imbued  with  his  style.  The  wings  appear  to  be  by 
Memling.  It  used  to  be  generally  accepted  that  they  must  have 
been  painted  by  him  when,  as  the  authorities  above  cited  assert, 
he  was  working  under  Roger.  If  the  Virgin  of  the  Nativity  on  the 
left  wing  and  angels  near  her  resemble  others  repeated  over  and 
over  again  in  Memling’s  later  pictures,  the  type  of  the  two  female 
saints  opposite  shows  a strong  Roger  influence.  The  John  Baptist 
standing  behind  them  descends  from  Campin,  through  Roger,  and 
in  Memling’s  hands  will  presently  be  transformed  into  the  type 
to  which  he  gave  vogue — a type  repeated  in  a seventeenth  century 
etching  by  J.  van  Cost,  falsely  inscribed  as  the  portrait  of  Memling 
by  himself.  Obviously  a man  of  the  aspect  of  this  Saint  could  not 
be  the  painter  of  such  pictures  as  Memling’s.* 

I am  thus  led  to  conclude  that  Guicciardini’s  information  is 
substantially  correct,  and  that  Memling  did  work  under  Roger  for  a 
longer  or  shorter  period.  Roger’s  late  pictures,  the  Middelburg 
and  Columba  altar-pieces,  are  those  most  evidently  echoed  in 
Memling’s  work,  so  that  it  was  probably  while  they  were  being 
painted  that  the  young  German  artist  had  access  to  Roger’s  studio. 
Even  if  this  be  granted  we  are  still  without  explanation  of  the 
origin  of  Memling’s  style,  for  though  it  is  influenced  by  Roger  it  is 
not  borrowed  from  him.  The  suspicion  lurks  in  my  mind  that 
Memling  may  have  studied  first  and  longest  in  some  centre  of  art 
such  as  Valenciennes,  in  the  French  Netherlands,  where  the  solid 
foundation  of  his  style  was  laid,  and  that  it  was  only  as  a formed 
artist  that  he  felt  the  influences  of  Roger,  and  presently  of 
Bouts  also. 

The  great  Last  Judgment  altar-piece  in  St.  Mary’s  Church  at 

* The  inventory  of  Margaret  of  Austria’s  pietures,  made  in  1524,  describes  a triptych 
of  which  the  central  panel  was  by  Roger,  the  wings  by  Memling.  Revue  archeoL,  1850,  p.  60. 


228 


HANS  MEMLING 


Dantzig  is  to  be  numbered  among  the  puzzling  pictures  of  the 
Flemish  School.  Original  documents  which  tell  so  much  about  it 
are  obstinately  silent  as  to  the  painter’s  name.  We  know  that  it 
was  ordered  by  Angelo  di  Jacopo  Tani,  the  representative  of  the 
Medici  in  Bruges,  and  his  wife  Catarina  Tanagli.  The  work  was 
finished  in  1472,  and  was  destined  for  Florence,  but  the  ship  that 
carried  it  was  illegally  made  prize  of  war  by  Dantzig  vessels,  so  that 
the  altar-piece  never  reached  its  destination,  but  was  set  up  in  the 
church  of  their  city,  where  it  remains  till  this  day.  The  painted 
area,  including  both  faces  of  the  wings,  is  about  72  square  feet. 
Weale  has  counted  the  number  of  figures  depicted,  and  they  are 
upwards  of  150,  mostly  nudes.  It  must  have  taken  many  years 
to  design  and  paint  so  extensive  a work — ten  or  twelve,  says  Weale, 
but  surely  it  might  have  been  done  in  six.  Bouts  took  four  years 
over  his  Last  Supper  triptych,  but  this  is  bigger  and  more  elaborate. 
It  may  therefore  have  been  begun  shortly  before  1467,  the  year  in 
which  Memling  is  first  mentioned  at  Bruges.  To  him  it  is  commonly 
ascribed,  but  many  good  critics  have  doubted  his  authorship. 

The  composition  follows  traditional  lines.  Christ  is  seated 
aloft  on  a rainbow,  accompanied  by  the  Virgin,  John  Baptist,  the 
Apostles,  and  trumpeting  angels.  On  the  ground  beneath  Him 
stands  armour-clad  St.  Michael  weighing  souls.  The  dead  are  rising 
from  the  earth  and  being  drafted  off  to  right  and  left  toward  Heaven 
on  the  dexter  wing  or  Hell  on  the  sinister.  The  donors  and  their 
saints  (like  statues  in  niches)  are  depicted  on  the  backs  of  the  wings. 
Some  of  the  blessed  are  likely  to  be  portraits  of  members  of  the 
Italian  colony  in  Bruges,  the  lineaments  of  Thomas  Portinari,  for 
instance,  being  recognizable  in  the  figure  in  the  mounting  scale.  A 
gravestone  is  said  to  bear  the  date  1467,  the  year  in  which  Angelo 
Tani  made  his  will,  though  his  actual  death  is  not  recorded,  and 
about  when  Memling  came  to  Bruges  and  apparently  began  his 
independent  career.  We  are  dimly  reminded  of  the  Last  Judgment 
painted  by  Stephan  Lochner  at  Cologne  some  years  earlier,  especi- 
ally in  the  architecture  of  the  Gate  of  Heaven,  with  its  sculptured 
lunette,  its  pediment,  and  the  angels  in  the  gallery  above  it.  This 
can  hardly  be  a chance  resemblance.  Still  more  close,  however, 
is  the  connexion  with  Roger’s  Beaune  altar-piece,  notably  in  the 
figures  of  Christ  and  the  Virgin,  where  direct  imitation  is  undeni- 


THE  DANTZIG  ALTAR-PIECE 


229 


able.  The  Hell  in  the  Louvre,  which  we  considered  when  dealing 
with  Bouts,  must  also  be  remembered.  A figure  on  the  Dantzig 
wing  with  arms  clasped  and  upraised  finds  a close  parallel  in  the 
panel  attributed  to  Bouts  ; the  latter,  however,  may  be  the  later 
in  date.  Notwithstanding  all  these  resemblances  Tani’s  altar- 
piece  stands  out  as  the  work  of  a painter  who  was  an  independent 
and  creative  artist,  apparently  influenced  by  both  Roger  and 
Bouts,  but  not  under  the  direction  of  either.  Many  figures  and 
heads  call  up  the  name  of  Memling.  The  white-robed  angel  behind 
St.  Michael’s  right  hand  seems  to  be  “ Memling  all  over  ” ; the 
resemblances  to  his  work  among  the  apostles,  the  angels,  and  the 
blessed  are  numerous  ; and  yet  we  hesitate.  There  are  also  trifling 
details  of  similarity,  such  as  the  painting  of  the  broken  ground  at 
the  foot  of  the  Paradise  wing,  and  other  such  tell-tale  minutiae. 
It  may  be  hard  to  arrive  at  a certain  decision,  but  those  who  claim 
that  Memling  painted  this  altar-piece  before  his  style  was  finally 
formed  can  back  their  contention  with  strong  arguments.  How  so 
important  a commission  came  to  be  given  to  so  young  a man,  what 
he  had  previously  produced  to  authenticate  his  powers — these  and 
the  like  obscurities  remain  for  future  historians  to  clear  up  if 
they  can. 

We  may  now  proceed  to  consider  the  main  portion  of  Memling’s 
career  on  which  his  accepted  pictures  throw  all  needful  light.  A 
volume  in  the  “ Classics  of  Art  ” contains  an  ugly  but  useful  series 
of  reproductions  of  them  all.  Henceforward,  from  about  1466  till 
his  death  in  1494,  he  resided  and  worked  at  Bruges,  the  commence- 
ment of  his  activity  there  and  that  of  Hugo  van  der  Goes  at  Ghent 
being  about  simultaneous.  It  is  remarkable  that  Memling’s  name 
does  not  appear  in  any  guild-register  that  has  been  preserved.  It 
has  been  suggested  that  he  was  in  the  Duke  of  Burgundy’s  service, 
for  only  painters  thus  retained  could  exercise  their  art  in  a city 
without  belonging  to  the  guild.  In  1467  Philip  the  Good  died, 
Charles  the  Rash  succeeded  to  the  Dukedom  of  Burgundy,  and 
Memling’s  career  at  Bruges  began.  Next  year  Charles  was  married 
to  Margaret  of  York,  and  a number  of  English  courtiers  attended 
the  wedding.  Sir  John  Donne  of  Kidwelly  and  his  wife  were  of  the 
number,  and  he  embraced  the  opportunity  to  order  the  picture  now 
at  Chatsworth  with  portraits  of  himself,  his  wife,  and  a daughter 


230 


HANS  MEMLING 


kneeling  before  the  enthroned  Virgin.  The  Knight,  who  died  in 
1469,  wears  the  collar  of  the  Yorkist  Order  of  the  Rose  and  Sun, 
conferred  on  him  by  Edward  IV.  In  this  picture  the  whole  art  of 
Memling  is  enshrined.  He  gives  us  here  practically  all  that  he  had 
to  give.  There  is  nothing  more  rare,  more  novel,  or  more  profound 
in  any  of  his  later  works,  and  for  this  reason,  because  his  art  is  wholly 
conventional.  Subject  and  treatment  alike  are  the  outcome  of 
conventions  which  successive  generations  of  artists  and  churchmen 
had  elaborated.  Take  the  subject  first : it  is  not  an  event  that  ever 
happened,  or  could  have  happened,  but  a symbolical  assemblage  of 
emblematic  figures,  the  meaning  and  intention  of  which  were  clearly 
understood  by  everybody  because  the  convention  was  as  much 
common  knowledge  as  are  the  letters  of  the  alphabet.  The  Virgin 
and  Child  were  repeated  from  earlier  models.  The  Genoese  velvet 
dorser,  the  Anatolian  rug,  the  columned  portico,  the  undulating 
riverine  landscape  background,  the  swans  on  the  water  and  the 
peacock  on  the  wall — every  one  of  these  features  belonged  to  the 
stock-in-trade  of  the  school.  So  did  the  saints  with  their  standard 
attributes  and  the  tiled  floor,  intended  to  help  with  the  perspeetive 
illusion.  Moreover,  the  perspective  itself  and  the  modelling,  the 
figure-drawing,  the  chiaroscuro  and  every  other  technical  detail, 
were  adapted  to  the  painting  of  this  sort  of  picture.  The  complete 
science  of  perspective  had  not  yet  been  discovered,  but  enough  to 
fulfil  the  needs  of  this  conventional  art.  When  Memling  was  asked 
for  figures  in  violent  action  or  high  passion,  he  failed  with  them. 
He  and  his  contemporaries  only  knew  as  mueh  as  was  necessary 
for  the  kind  of  pictures  at  that  time  in  general  demand.  Compare 
such  a painting  as  this  with  the  Ghent  altar-piece  of  the  Van  Eycks  ; 
the  difference  is  obvious.  There  almost  everything  is  novel,  it  is 
all  the  invention  of  the  artist.  Neither  the  subject  nor  the  treat- 
ment is  traditional.  No  fully  equipped  school  stands  behind  the 
craftsman.  But  behind  Memling  are  two  generations  of  artists, 
striving,  inventing,  improving  teehnique,  succeeding  or  failing 
with  their  experiments.  Memling  inherited  the  results  of  their 
labours.  His  hand  is  to  no  small  degree  guided  by  their  brains. 
He  is  the  best,  the  most  refined,  the  most  complete  exponent  of  the 
school.  Every  picture  of  his  that  has  merit  is  essentially  a school 
picture.  This  is  why  any  single  picture  by  Memling  is  delightful, 


THE  CHATSWORTH  TRIPTYCH 


231 


but  a collection  of  several  is  monotonous.  It  would  be  pleasant 
to  have  a single  Memling  in  one’s  house,  but  boring  to  be  compelled 
to  live  with  many.  The  same  Virgin,  the  same  mild  saints,  the 
same  angels,  the  same  expressions  on  the  countenances  of  donors, 
the  same  postures  and  gestures,  the  same  kind  of  landscape,  the 
same  endless  afternoon  light — it  is  all  eharming  enough  for  once, 
but  does  not  gain  by  repetition.  Memling  was  the  Perugino  of  the 
North. 

Far  be  it  from  me,  therefore,  to  invite  the  reader  to  inspect  the 
suecession  of  all  Memling’s  known  pictures  one  by  one.  Any  good 
example  of  the  artist’s  work  suffices,  though  of  course  there  are 
degrees  of  eharm  between  one  and  another.  His  most  extensive 
work  was  the  large  triptych  painted  to  adorn  the  high  altar  of  the 
ehapel  of  the  Hospital  of  St.  John  at  Bruges.  The  two  St.  Johns 
stand  beside  the  enthroned  Virgin  on  the  centre  panel,  and  the 
two  wings  are  devoted  to  them,  while  on  the  exterior  are  portraits 
of  the  four  donors  with  their  saints.  Weale  shows  sufficient  reason 
for  coneluding  that  the  pieture  was  ordered  in  or  before  1475.  It 
was  finished  in  1479.  There  is  a touch  of  human  interest  in  the  back- 
ground, where  (again  citing  Weale)  is  a view  of  the  Bruges  town- 
crane  in  Flemish  Street,  with  Brother  Jodoe  Williams,  master  of 
the  hospital,  superintending  the  wine-gauging.  “ The  house  in 
course  of  eonstruction  to  the  left  at  the  corner  of  the  Coornblomme 
Street  is  that  named  Dinant,  and  the  little  Romanesque  church  in 
the  distanee  is  that  of  St.  John,  demolished  at  the  end  of  the 
eighteenth  century.” 

The  limitations  of  Memling’s  powers  are  easily  perceived  by 
eomparing  the  pietures  on  the  wings  with  the  centre-piece.  The 
latter  is  a group  of  Madonna  and  saints,  typieal  figures  construeted 
according  to  rule.  It  is  therefore  charming,  though  not  improved 
by  its  large  seale.  The  wing  pietures — ^the  Baptist’s  martyrdom 
and  the  Evangelist’s  Vision — lack  every  dramatic  element,  and 
though  the  parts  are  well  enough,  eaeh  whole  lacks  both  unity  and 
force.  The  Apocalyptic  incidents  are  merely  diagrammatic.  More 
delightful  to  my  thinking  is  the  small  repliea  of  the  eentral  panel 
which  belonged  to  Sir  Joshua  Reynolds  and  is  now  in  the  New 
York  Museum.  It  was  painted  for  another  donor,  who  kneels  behind 
St.  Catherine. 


232 


HANS  MEMLING 


The  most  satisfying  of  Memling’s  triptychs  is  the  Floreins  altar- 
pieee,  likewise  in  St.  John’s  Hospital.  It  is  on  a small  scale,  and 
finely  finished.  Even  the  outsides  of  the  wings,  usually  so  dull, 
are  beautiful.  They  show  the  Baptist  and  St.  Veronica,  each  seated 
on  the  ground  in  a beautiful  landscape  and  framed  within  a 
sculptured  arch.  In  these  sculptured  arches,  and  in  the  subjects 
within  them,  the  influence  of  Roger  is  more  plainly  apparent  than 
in  any  other  picture  by  Memling.  He  has  had  the  St.  Columba 
triptych  in  mind,  and  has  freely  borrowed  from  it  both  for  the 
Adoration  of  the  Magi  and  the  Presentation  in  the  Temple,  but  in 
borrowing  he  has  refined,  simplified,  and  perfected  the  composition. 
The  Nativity  on  the  other  wing  is  no  less  obviously  borrowed  from 
the  central  panel  of  Roger’s  Middelburg  altar-piece,  and  is  likewise 
improved  in  the  borrowing.^  Here,  in  fact,  the  conventional  treat- 
ment of  these  religious  subjects  reaches  perfection.  Design  and 
treatment  are  in  complete  harmony.  Excellent  composition, 
delightful  finish,  charming  figures,  and  a sweet  spirit  are  united  or 
expressed.  This  kind  of  art  could  no  further  go.  After  it  there 
was  nothing  to  expect  save  repetition,  decadence,  and  then  some- 
thing new,  something  altogether  different.  A realized  ideal  is  like 
a flower  that  has  fully  blossomed.  It  must  fade. 

Memling  painted  two  pictures  peculiar  for  the  multitude  of 
incidents  they  try  to  unite  on  a single  panel.  They  are  the  Seven 
Sorrows  of  the  Virgin  at  Turin  and  the  so-called  Seven  Joys  at 
Munich.  The  former  was  finished  in  1478,  the  latter  is  dated  1480. 
Mr.  Weale  appears  to  me  to  have  proved ' that  the  Turin  picture  was 
painted  for  Memling’s  friend  William  Vrelant  the  miniaturist,  and  by 
him  presented  to  the  Booksellers’  Guild  of  Bruges.  It  depicts  the 
principal  incidents  of  the  Passion  from  the  Entry  into  Jerusalem 
at  one  corner  to  Christ  on  the  road  to  Emmaus  at  the  other.  Most 
of  the  area  is  occupied  by  a chaotic  assemblage  of  buildings  (for 
Jerusalem)  with  all  sorts  of  archways,  openings,  and  courtyards 
contrived,  each  to  contain  some  incident.  The  method  of  isolation 

1 An  earlier  and  more  independent  version  by  Memling  is  at  Copenhagen  (phot.  Braun, 
44253),  another  in  the  Clemens  Collection  at  Munich,  Bruges  Exhibition  (1902),  No.  80. 

2 Burlington  Mag.,  Feb.  1908,  p.  309.  German  critics  for  the  most  part  hold  that  this 
is  the  picture  of  the  Passion  which  Vasari  records  as  having  been  painted  by  Memling  for 
Thomas  Portinari.  A comparison  of  the  donor’s  portraits  here  with  those  of  Portinari 
and  his  wife  shows  this  to  be  impossible.  They  are  totally  different  people. 


COMPOSITE  PICTURES 


233 


is,  in  fact,  that  employed  in  the  St.  Bertin  altar-piece.  Probably 
such  a painting  would  be  appreciated  by  a miniaturist.  Individual 
scenes  are  often  both  beautifully  and  skilfully  rendered,"  but  the 
effect  of  the  whole  is  chaotic.  This  did  not  prevent  Peter  Bultync 
from  ordering  a similarly  constructed  picture  for  presentation  to  the 
guild  of  the  Tanners.  Here  Jerusalem  is  pushed  further  back,  and 
humps  of  earth  or  rock  are  employed  to  divide  the  open-air  subjects. 
Events  connected  with  the  Journey  and  Adoration  of  the  Magi 
occupy  most  of  the  space.  We  see  the  Wise  Men  afar  off,  each  on 
the  top  of  a separate  mountain  beholding  the  star.  We  can  observe 
their  three  caravans  meeting  and  proceeding  together  to  visit  Herod. 
The  Massacre  of  the  Innocents  follows,  and  then  the  Adoration  of 
the  Magi,  which  is  the  principal  event,  in  the  foreground.  After  it 
the  Kings  hurry  away.  They  embark  on  three  ships,  the  first  of 
them  already  growing  very  small  in  the  distance.  To  left  and  right 
are  other  incidents  in  the  life  of  the  Virgin : the  Annunciation  and 
Nativity  on  one  side  and  post-Resurrection  events  on  the  other, 
with  the  Dormition  and  Assumption  of  the  Virgin  in  the  furthest 
corner.  Passion  subjects  were  unsuited  to  Memling’s  genius,  but 
happier  scenes  are  entirely  in  his  line.  Nothing  could  be  more  de- 
lightful in  its  kind  than  the  apparition  of  the  angel  to  the  shepherds. 
The  story  of  the  Kings’  journey,  for  all  its  patching  about,  is  delight- 
fully told,  and  the  picture  as  a whole  is  full  of  interest  One  can 
stand  close  to  it  and  wander  about  in  it  in  imagination  with  pleasure. 
But  the  whole  lacks  unity  and  produces  no  integral  effect.  As 
an  altar-piece  it  must  have  been  singularly  ineffective.  If  each 
subject  had  been  painted  separately  on  a panel  to  itself  and  the 
series  framed  together  in  suitable  assemblage  the  result  would  have 
been  better.  That  was  how  Memling’s  pictures  of  the  Ursula 
legend  had  to  be  dealt  with,  for  they  were  made  to  adorn  the  shrine 
of  the  Saint,  and,  according  to  the  fashion  of  the  day,  it  had  to  be 
constructed  like  a little  building  with  arcaded  walls  and  gabled  ends. 

The  shrine  has  long  ago  taken  an  accepted  place  among  the 
most  generally  adrnired  works  of  fifteenth  century  painting,  so 
that  I need  waste  no  words  in  praising  it.  The  artist  treats  the 
incidents  of  the  legend  as  a fairy-tale,  which  must  always  be  told  as 
though  there  could  be  no  possible  doubt  of  the  truth  of  every  word. 
The  eleven  thousand  virgins  of  English  noble  birth,  all  bareheaded 


234 


HANS  MEMLING 


and  clothed  in  the  rich  costumes  of  the  fifteenth  century  Burgundian 
court,  go  sailing  up  the  Rhine,  tightly  packed  together  in  little 
boats.  There  is  something  of  Flemish  literalness  in  it  all,  and 
yet  it  is  a literalness  of  a fanciful  kind.  Each  scene  looks  like 
a picnic.  There  is  the  real  Cologne  in  the  background,  the  ship 
(a  real  ship)  at  the  quay,  and  twelve  young  ladies  landing  on  the 
shore.  But  for  the  presence  of  an  angel  in  the  background  we 
should  not  have  supposed  that  anything  miraculous  was  intended. 
It  is  in  the  sudden  changes,  the  surprising  succession  of  events, 
that  the  fairy  element  comes  in,  just  as  in  any  other  fairy-tale  where 
the  fascination  lies  in  rapid  mutations  of  scene  and  circumstance  by 
supernatural  agency,  though  each  individual  incident,  taken  alone, 
may  be  perfectly  natural  and  ordinary.  Princesses  and  milkmaids 
are  common  enough  mortals,  but  the  sudden  elevation  of  a milk- 
maid to  be  a princess,  the  sudden  transformation  of  surroundings 
and  attire,  is  the  surprising  work  of  the  fairies,  and  the  charm  of 
the  tale  lies  in  the  surprise.  Even  so  is  it  with  Memling’s  pictured 
tale.  In  one  panel  you  see  the  pretty  company  landing  at  Basle, 
and  without  a moment’s  pause  starting  off  one  after  another  along 
the  road  to  Rome,  each  so  wrapped  up  in  her  own  thoughts  that 
no  two  walk  together  side  by  side.  They  step  along  daintily  with 
the  skirts  of  their  dresses  held  carefully  up.  Then  comes  the  magic 
transformation.  In  the  next  panel  the  four  or  five  hundred  miles 
of  journey,  with  its  Alpine  fastnesses,  its  forests,  and  its  dangers  of 
every  kind,  have  been  safely  accomplished  without  fatigue,  and  we 
find  ourselves  in  Rome,  watching  the  arrival  of  the  un-travel- 
stained  company.  Along  the  level  country  road,  in  through  the 
gate,  and  up  the  street  of  the  city  they  come  to  the  portal  of  a 
church,  where  Pope  and  Cardinals  are  assembled  to  receive  them, 
while  at  the  same  moment  Prince  Conon,  Ursula’s  betrothed,  like- 
wise arrives  with  his  knights,  and  all  joyfully  receive  baptism  at 
the  hands  of  the  priests.  We  do  not  see  them  again  until  the  time 
of  their  departure  from  Basle  in  company  with  Pope,  bishops,  and 
cardinals  on  their  return  journey.  The  picture  is  of  exceeding 
beauty — the  little  ship  packed  with  such  well-dressed  and  gently 
demeanoured  personages,  the  Pope  seated  in  the  midst,  radiant  of 
countenance  and  pouring  forth  words  of  holy  wisdom,  to  which 
the  devout  company  pay  reverent  and  delighted  attention.  The 


THE  SHRINE  OF  ST.  URSULA 


235 


remaining  two  panels  contain  the  martyrdom  : in  the  first  the 
maidens  are  being  shot  down,  and  Prince  Conon  dies  in  the  arms 
of  his  bride  ; the  other  panel  is  reserved  for  the  death  of  the  glorious 
Ursula  alone.  But  these  martyrdom  pictures  are  quite  unreal. 
The  soldiers  are  perfect  gentlemen.  Their  chiefs  look  on  with 
smiling  wonder  and  a kind  of  reverent  delight.  The  beholder,  at 
a first  glance,  may  receive  some  notion  of  violence  and  the  like, 
but  another  look  is  reassuring.  Clearly  no  harm  is  being  done  ; 
it  is  only  a pantomime.  The  soldiers,  who  look  as  though  they  were 
shooting  arrows  at  the  maidens,  soon  win  our  confidence.  For  all 
their  acting,  their  eyes  betray  them,  and  we  trust  them  instinctively. 
From  a hasty  glance  we  might  think  the  girls  in  the  boat  were  being 
killed,  but  we  soon  see  that  they  are  not ; they  throw  their  arms 
about  and  shrink  behind  the  gunwale  as  if  they  were  frightened  ; 
but  they  are  bad  actresses  ; we  see  through  it  all  at  once,  and  the 
innocent  deception  raises  a smile.  The  unreality  of  the  whole  affair 
is  emphasized  by  the  introduction  of  the  portrait  of  a famous 
contemporary  as  the  archer,  who  is  pretending  to  shoot  St.  Ursula. 
Weale  showed  that  he  is  none  other  than  Selim,  son  of  Mahommed  II 
and  brother  of  Bajazet  II,  who  was  taken  prisoner  at  Rhodes  in 
1488.  Pinturicchio  sketched  him  and  his  suite  from  life  and 
painted  him  in  the  Appartemento  Borgia  and  elsewhere. 

It  was  in  connexion  with  this  imprisonment  of  his  brother 
that  Bajazet  II  in  1492  sent  certain  precious  relics  as  a gift  to 
Innocent  VIII,  and  among  them  an  emerald  on  which  two  heads 
were  engraved  in  intaglio,  fabled  to  be  likenesses  of  Christ  and 
St.  Paul.  This  may  have  been  a fourth  centurj^-  Roman  gem,  with  a 
pair  of  heads  in  profile  facing  one  another,  and  intended  to  repre- 
sent St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul.  Many  examples  of  that  design  of  early 
Christian  date  are  known.^  It  appears  that  the  heads  on  this  gem 
were  repeated  in  some  late  fifteenth  century  Italian  medals,  the 
St.  Paul  closely  resembling  the  antique  original.  Christ’s  head, 
however,  though  in  some  points  like  the  antique  St.  Peter,  was  not 
copied  directly  from  the  gem,  but  from  a Flemish  painting  based 
upon  it.  The  best  and  earliest  existing  example  of  this  painting 
is  a head  of  Christ  in  Berlin  Museum,  which  used  to  be  ascribed  to 
John  van  Eyck,  but  in  fact  was  not  painted  long  before  1500.  The 

^ See  Garrucci,  pi.  435. 


236 


HANS  MEMLING 


jamb  and  spring  of  a background  arch  on  the  right  side  show  it  to 
be  the  half  of  a panel  on  which  the  heads  of  Christ  and  the  Virgin 
were  once  united.  A “cut-out”  plaquette  at  Berlin  {Cat.,  ii, 
pi.  74,  No.  997)  contains  the  complete  composition,  and  so  does 
a Limoges  enamel  in  the  British  Museum.^  The  Flemish  picture 
in  question  does  not  here  concern  us,  for  it  belongs  as  little  to 
the  workshop  of  Memling  as  to  that  of  the  Van  Eycks.  Suffice 
it  to  say  that  it  gave  currency  to  a type  that  was  frequently 
copied  under  the  impression  that  it  preserved  the  actual  lineaments 
of  Our  Lord. 

It  might  easily  be  predicted  that  the  Madonna  pictures  of  such 
an  artist  as  the  foregoing  examples  of  the  work  of  Memling  show 
him  to  have  been  would  not  fail  to  possess  unusual  charm.  The 
earliest  to  which  a date  can  be  assigned  is  the  full-length  standing 
Virgin  of  1472  in  the  Liechtenstein  Collection,  in  which  we  may 
trace  the  influence  of  Roger,  but  the  later  half-length  in  the  same 
gallery  (even  if  it  be  a copy)  is  more  characteristic  of  his  best  period. 
Loveliest  of  all  is  the  Madonna  in  Prince  Radziwill’s  Collection 
(Berlin),  the  scene  being  to  all  intents  and  purposes  the  bedroom 
of  Van  Eyck’s  Arnolfini.  The  grace  of  the  group  of  Virgin  and 
supporting  angels,  the  sweetness  of  sentiment,  the  beauty  of  the 
treatment,  the  perfect  harmony  of  the  whole  were  not  surpassed 
in  any  other  of  Memling’s  works.  His  finest  and  maturest  half- 
length  Virgin  is  on  Martin  van  Nieuwenhoven’s  diptych  of  1487, 
a picture  frequently  imitated  by  such  followers  of  Memling  as  he 
who  painted  a well-known  Madonna  belonging  to  Lord  Northbrook 
and  one  which  is  or  was  in  the  Sommier  Collection.  A contemporary 
copy  of  it  with  added  angels  (one  playing  a Jew’s  harp  !)  was  found 
at  a baker’s  in  Bruges,  employed  as  the  lid  of  a flour  barrel,  the 
middle  part  being  thus  badly  damaged  ; it  now  belongs  to  Baron 
Bethune. 

The  most  delightful  of  all  Memling’s  Madonnas  are  among  the 
last  pictures  he  painted,  those,  to  wit,  in  the  Vienna  and  Uffizi 
Galleries.  In  each  a richly  vestmented  angel  drops  the  lute  to 
offer  an  apple  to  the  Child.  On  the  other  side  is  either  an  angel  or 
a donor.  Glimpses  of  landscape  are  seen  to  right  and  left  of  the 

1 For  many  of  the  above  cited  facts  I am  indebted  to  Mr.  G.  F . Hill,  who  has  treated 
the  question  at  length  in  a revised  edition  of  his  Portraits  of  Christ. 


HIS  PORTRAITS 


237 


dorser  of  the  throne,  and  the  whole  is  surmounted  and  framed  by 
an  elaborately  decorated  round  arch,  with  cherubs  (whether  alive 
or  sculptured  one  can  hardly  tell)  suspending  festoons  across  it. 
Cherubs  and  festoons  obviously  owe  their  origin  to  Italian  influence, 
but  it  is  not  necessary  to  send  Memling  to  Italy  to  fetch  them. 
Arch,  cherubs,  and  festoons  had  much  success,  and  were  often 
imitated  by  painters  of  the  next  generation  ; indeed,  it  is  from  them 
that  we  can  trace  the  first  beginnings  of  that  tendency  which, 
thirty  years  or  more  later,  was  to  be  manifested  in  the  works  of  the 
Antwerp  Mannerists. 

Portraits  of  donors  introduced  into  many  of  the  pictures  we 
have  noticed  would  suffice  to  demonstrate  that  Memling  was  a 
good  portrait-painter.  We  are  not,  however,  restricted  to  them, 
being  fortunately  able  to  enjoy  many  pictures  by  him  which  are 
portraits  pure  and  simple.  With  one  or  two  unimportant  excep- 
tions they  include  little  more  than  the  bust,  and  an  intruded  hand 
or  pair  of  hands  of  the  sitter.  The  earlier  examples  oftenest  have 
plain  backgrounds,  the  later  landscapes.  If  Memling  at  any  time 
held  the  office  of  Court  Painter  to  Charles  the  Rash,  we  should 
have  had  some  princely  portraits  from  his  hand,  but  neither  originals 
nor  copies  have  come  down  to  us.  The  best  portrait  of  Margaret 
of  York  is  in  the  Nardus  Collection  (Paris),  but  it  betrays  neither 
the  hand  nor  the  eye  of  Memling.  It  has  been  suggested  that  the 
kneeling  King  in  the  Floreins  Magi  of  1479  is  a likeness  of  Duke 
Charles  and  that  the  St.  Catherine  and  St.  Barbara  in  the  John 
altar-piece  of  the  same  date  in  the  Hospital  of  St.  John  depict  Mary 
of  Burgundy  and  Margaret  of  York  respectively.  It  is  possible; 
but  such  likenesses  introduced  into  religious  pictures,  and  for  which 
the  persons  depicted  gave  no  sittings,  cannot  possess  the  qualities 
we  look  for  in  a portrait.  Two  repetitions  of  a bust  of  Anthony 
“ le  grand  Batard  de  Bourgogne  ” exist  in  the  galleries  at  Dresden 
and  Chantilly,  but  both  are  copies  of  some  original.  He  wears  the 
Order  of  the  Golden  Fleece,  conferred  on  him  in  1456,  while  from 
his  apparent  age  the  original  picture  cannot  have  been  painted 
later  than  1460.  It  is  more  forceful,  more  dramatic,  than  any 
other  known  portrait  painted  by  Memling,  and,  though  commonly 
ascribed  to  him,  implies  an  artist  of  more  fiery  nature,  such  as  Hugo 
van  der  Goes.  The  stolid,  not  to  say  surly,  individual  whose  bust 
17 


238 


HANS  MEMLING 


is  at  Hampton  Court  ^ offers  a more  characteristic  example  of 
Memling’s  early  portraiture.  It  is  careful,  observant,  and  workman- 
like, but  lacks  vivacity,  rendering  merely  the  aspect  of  the  face  in 
settled  repose.  The  same  observation  may  be  made  with  respect 
to  a whole  group  of  portraits  painted  about  1467  to  1472.  They 
appear  to  depict  Italians.^  Earliest  of  them  is  the  Machiavellian 
Man  with  a Pink  in  the  J.  P.  Morgan  Collection,  probably  a 
member  of  the  Italian  Colony,  in  character,  disposition,  and  dis- 
tinction far  removed  from  the  local  burgher-class  of  Bruges.  In 
the  1904  Exhibition  of  French  Primitives  at  Paris,  sitter  and  artist 
were  both  claimed  for  Frenchmen,  but  neither  claim  is  admissible. 
No  uncertainty  of  authorship  attaches  to  the  Antwerp  portrait  of 
an  Italian  medallist,  who  can  scarcely  have  been  other  than  Niccolo 
di  Forzore  Spinelli,  called  Niccolo  Fiorentino  (1430-1514),  great- 
nephew  of  the  painter  Spinello  Aretino.  He  was  engaged  as  seal- 
engraver  to  Duke  Charles  in  1467  and  the  following  year,  at  which 
time  Memling  must  have  painted  the  picture.  It  is  the  first  of 
his  portraits  with  a landscape  background,  thoroughly  Flemish  in 
character,  but  with  a palm-tree  introduced  in  reference  to  the 
southern  origin  of  the  medallist.  The  medal  held  in  his  hand 
indicates  his  craft.  He  wears  a skull-cap  beneath  which  his  dark 
curly  hair  bushes  forth  around  the  face.  The  outlying  hairs  are 
drawn  individually  against  brow  or  sky.’  Similar  in  composition 
and  treatment  is  the  portrait  of  another  Italian,  which  is  in  the 
Corsini  Gallery  at  Florence,  the  landscape  including  one  of  those 
semicircular  roads  which  Memling  often  introduced.  The  bust 
portrait  of  a fat-faced,  humorous,  blase-looking  man  at  Brussels 
belongs  to  the  same  group.  Otto  Seeck  claims  him  for  Niccolo 
Strozzi.  A pair  of  portraits  in  the  New  York  Museum  represent 
Thomas  Portinari  and  his  wife,  Mary  Baroncelli,  the  same  that 
we  have  seen  on  the  wings  of  Hugo’s  great  triptych  at  Florence. 

1 It  bears  the  number  276  painted  on  to  the  panel,  but  I cannot  find  it  in  the  catalogue. 
Friedlander  attributed  it  to  Memling,  Winkler  to  the  same  pupil  of  Roger  who  painted  the 
Malines  Archer’s  votive  picture  (Antwerp,  No.  818). 

“ The  condition  of  the  portrait  of  James  of  Savoy  in  Basle  Museum  is  so  bad  that  it 
is  impossible  to  decide  whether  it  is  an  overpainted  original  or  copy.  The  general  aspect 
of  the  design  is  suggestive  of  Memling. 

3 The  early  portrait  at  Copenhagen  by  Memling  is  perhaps  about  contemporary  with 
the  Spinelli. 


HIS  PORTRAITS 


239 


They  were  married  in  1470,  when  the  bride  was  only  14  years 
of  age.  Here  they  are  not  more  than  two  or  three  years 
older,  though  the  lady  has  already  put  on  matronly  airs  of 
sobriety.  She  wears  a costly  neeklace,  which  her  husband  could 
well  afford  to  pay  for.  Her  connexion,  the  wife  of  Pierantonio 
Baroncelli,  whose  portrait  in  the  Uffizi  was  painted  by  a follower 
of  Hugo’s  some  seventeen  years  later,  owned  a more  elaborate 
enamelled  neeklace  of  similar  type.  Why  did  not  their  de- 
scendants take  care  of  these  charming  works  of  the  goldsmith’s 
art,  instead  of  sending  them  to  the  melting-pot  ? If  the  creative 
instinet  is  strong  in  man,  it  is  matched  by  a no  less  powerful 
impulse  to  destroy,  and  what  we  call  Fashion  is  the  efficient  agent 
for  both  activities. 

In  none  of  these  pietures  do  we  find  sueh  revelation  of  character 
as  is  the  glory  of  the  best  portraits  of  the  Flemish  School,  or  of 
Memling’s  maturer  days.  They  are  people  whose  minds  are  in 
repose  ; they  might  almost  be  sitting  to  a photographer.  Yet 
beneath  this  still  passivity  there  is  life.  Each  face  is  ready  to 
express  emotion  when  emotion  arises.  The  perfection  and  delicacy 
of  the  modelling  manifest  the  vitality  that  distinguishes  the  faces 
from  masks.  They  are  not  wooden,  for  all  their  momentary  fixity. 
The  flesh  is  soft,  potentially  changeful,  and  of  a multifold  plasticity. 
As  with  Memling’s  religious  paintings,  so  with  his  portraits,  they  do 
not  gain  by  being  gathered  together.  Each  is  more  enjoyable 
when  seen  alone.  Eaeh  gains  by  familiarity.  The  families  of  these 
sitters  must  have  been  well  pleased  with  the  portraits,  their  obvious 
sincerity,  their  completeness,  their  comfortable  companionship. 
The  painter  acted  as  a mirror.  He  reflected  the  face  of  eaeh  subject 
in  repose.  Hence  Memling  was  to  some  extent  at  the  mercy  of  his 
patrons.  If  a sitter  possessed  personal  charm  it  might  appear, 
as  it  does  in  the  portraits  of  three  lads,  all  again,  I think,  Italians, 
one  formerly  in  the  J.  E.  Taylor  Collection,  another  in  the  Venice 
Academy,  the  third  in  the  Dun  Collection  (formerly  Lord  Wemyss’). 
The  first  is  of  a peculiar  type  with  a strangely  long  flat  cheek ; for 
him  Fate  may  have  held  remarkable  experiences  in  store.  The 
second  is  a dreamer,  perfectly  suited  to  Memling’s  vision  and  treat- 
ment, and  wholly  realizable  by  him.  The  last  is  a little  older,  with 
a budding  moustache  upon  his  lip,  a spick-and-span  youth  with  a 


240 


HANS  MEMLING 


determined  expression,  his  personality  beautifully  expressed  within 
the  fixed  limits  of  Memling’s  formula. 

As  Memling  advanced  in  years,  he  obtained  a deeper  insight 
into  some  types  of  character,  rather  by  quickened  sympathy  than 
by  developed  critical  power.  It  is  to  sympathy  that  we  owe  the 
great  charm  felt  in  the  portraits  of  a married  pair  of  mature  age 
now  divided  between  the  Berlin  and  Louvre  Galleries.  The  man’s 
is  truly  a great  portrait — ^life  itself.  Character  and  expression  alike 
are  there,  and  we  feel  that  if  painter  and  sitter  were  unacquainted 
to  start  with  they  must  have  parted  warm  friends.  The  wife’s 
likeness  is  a worthy  pendant.*  Yet  more  delightful  and  for  a like 
reason  is  the  New  York  (Altman  Coll.)  bust-portrait  of  a mellow 
and  kindly  old  gentleman,  exceptional  among  Netherlanders  whose 
likenesses  have  come  down  to  us.  He  may  be  supposed  to  have 
cultivated  to  perfection  “ Part  d’etre  grandpere.”  Here  are  all 
the  tenderness,  sympathy,  and  insight  needed  for  such  a master- 
piece of  portraiture. 

With  these  delightful  pictures  we  may  group  the  Frankfurt 
man  in  a high  cap  with  eyes  very  close  together  and  a suppressed 
smile.  The  kindly  diplomatic  individual  lives  before  us.  ^Vhen 
he  turns  and  looks  our  way,  he  will  surely  speak  ; we  need  only 
wait  a moment.  In  all  these  pictures  Memling  endows  his  subject 
with  vitality  and  expression  not  earlier  found,  beside  giving  us  a 
fuller  idea  of  the  general  character  of  the  personages  portrayed  than 
we  receive  from  the  preceding  group.  Two  portraits,  of  1480,  at 
Brussels  express  the  likenesses  of  William  Moreel  (Morelli)  and  his 
wife,  who  appear  again  upon  the  St.  Christopher  altar-piece  of  1484 
in  the  Bruges  Academy.  Weale  would  have  us  believe  that  the 
Flemish  lady  called  the  “ Sibylla  Sambettia,”  painted  in  1480,  was 
their  daughter  Mary  ; but  she  is  obviously  older  than  her  supposed 
mother.  The  picture  is  in  the  Hospital  of  St.  John.  Memling 
lacked  the  power  of  a Rembrandt  to  endow  with  charm  the  likeness 
of  an  unattractive  person. 

A man  and  wife  on  a pair  of  wings  at  Hermannstadt  have  been 
ill-treated  by  restorers  ; it  is,  however,  not  their  fault  only  that  the 
little  boy  behind  the  one  and  the  dog  behind  the  other  both  look  as 

^ Another  portrait  of  an  old  woman  in  a white  head-dress,  in  the  C.  von  Hollitscher 
Collection  at  Berlin,  is  likewise  attributed  to  Memling.  I have  not  seen  it. 


MARTIN  VAN  NIEUWENHOVEN 


241 


though  they  were  stuffed  ! In  several  of  the  afore-mentioned 
pictures  the  attitude  chosen  is  that  of  prayer,  with  hands  joined. 
Such  must  have  been  wings  for  diptychs  or  triptychs  from  which 
the  jostlings  of  time  have  separated  them  ; but  an  admirable 
diptych  of  1487  has  been  preserved  for  us  entire  by  the  pious  care 
of  the  Hospitallers  of  Bruges.  It  shows  one  of  Memling’s  best 
Madonnas  on  the  dexter  leaf  and  the  half-length  of  Martin  van 
Nieuwenhoven  on  the  sinister.  The  work  was  designed  and 
executed  with  unusual  care.  A learned  mathematician  once  pointed 
out  to  me  indications  of  the  pains  taken  with  the  proportions  of  the 
various  parts,  which  are  indeed  excellent.  The  artist  has  availed 
himself  of  the  traditional  “ Coupe  d’or  ” ; traces  of  the  funda- 
mental triangle  can  still  be  observed  on  the  jamb  of  the  window 
behind  Martin’s  right  shoulder.  The  likeness  is  worked  out  with 
much  thoroughness  and  well  deserves  the  high  repute  in  which 
it  is  held.  The  man  himself  is  evidently  something  of  a fool,  but 
Memling  hides  his  weakness  by  a treatment  exceptionally  dramatic. 
The  Hague  bust-portrait  of  a disillusionized  individual,  for  whom 
the  world  is  much  out  of  joint,  must  be  of  about  the  same  date.  It 
exemplifies  the  seriousness  of  Memling’s  outlook  upon  mankind  in 
his  last  period.  Compare  it  with  the  Spinelli  of  twenty  years 
before.  The  convention  in  both  is  approximately  the  same,  but 
how  different  is  the  treatment ! The  landscape  has  become  merely 
decorative.  The  hair  is  still  the  frame  to  the  face,  but  the  face 
itself  is  painted  with  a solidity,  an  understanding  of  form  and 
sense  of  mass,  an  appreciation  of  and  insight  into  character  far 
ahead  of  the  earlier  work. 

Three  panels  of  equal  dimensions  containing  half-lengths,  one 
dated  1487,  are  in  the  Uffizi  and  at  Berlin.  The  last  is  a Madonna  ; 
the  other  two  display  St.  Benedict  and  a praying  donor.  It  has 
been  thought  that  they  may  have  been  framed  together,  but  their 
backgrounds  are  not  in  agreement.  Even  the  Uffizi  pair,  which 
came  out  of  the  Hospital  of  Santa  Maria  Nuova  at  Florence,  do  not 
make  a very  satisfactory  diptych.  If  they  belong  together  the 
young  man’s  name  was  doubtless  Benedetto,  and  the  suggestion 
that  he  was  Benedetto  Portinari  obtains  support.  The  Portinari 
were  closely  associated  both  with  Bruges  and  the  said  hospital. 
Memling  has  not  made  the  youth  interesting,  but  he  has  thoroughly 


242 


HANS  MEMLING 


enjoyed  painting  the  Saint,  one  of  his  best  portraits.  How  gladly 
would  we  identify  the  model ! 

We  are  thus  led  to  eonclude  that  Memling  was  highly  suecessful 
as  a portrait-painter,  but  within  a restricted  area.  He  could  paint 
only  those  with  whom  he  was  in  sympathy,  and  they  were  not  the 
powerful  ones  of  the  earth.  Men  of  gentle  heart  like  himself  he 
could  immortalize.  His  own  portrait  is  in  entire  agreement  with 
what  we  learn  of  him  from  his  works,  as  of  course  it  had  to  be.  A 
painter’s  face  and  his  pictures  are  alike  modelled  by  his  character  ; 
the  one  cannot  belie  the  other.  Memling’s  face  is  peculiar  ; the 
upper  and  lower  parts  of  it  are  in  disagreement.  He  has  a weak, 
retreating  chin  and  an  underhung  lower  jaw,  but  he  possesses  a 
fine  brow,  steady,  observant,  persistent,  intelligent  eyes,  and  the 
well-formed  nose  of  a capable  man.‘  If  we  must  choose  a single 
word  to  define  his  expression  we  might  call  it  “ aspiring.”  This 
man  will  work  hard,  without  excitement  and  without  passion.  He 
will  prefer  things  pure,  lovely,  and  of  good  report.  He  will  be  the 
friend  of  quiet  and  kindly  folk.  He  will  pursue  the  even  tenor  of 
his  way.  His  pictures  prove  him  to  have  possessed  an  artist’s 
eye  for  a picture  as  a whole.  If  his  sympathies  did  not  embrace 
the  wide  gamut  of  human  capacity  and  emotion,  they  were  broad 
enough  to  include  all  that  was  in  harmony  with  his  own  ideal.  His 
paintings  are  complete,  each  within  its  intended  area.  They  are 
integral.  They  suffer  neither  from  the  too-much  nor  the  too-little. 
Execution  matches  conception.  Idea  and  form  are  at  one.  They 
may  not  greatly  stir  the  imagination,  but  they  please  the  eye.  Their 
merit  may  perhaps  best  be  measured  by  the  fact  that  of  all  Nether- 
landish painters  Memling  has  most  attracted  the  affection  of 
posterity,  though  he  has  failed  to  excite  its  wonder.  In  the  Elysian 
fields  he  walks  with  Fra  Angelico  ; but  if  we  are  to  select  an  Italian 
parallel  to  him  as  an  artist  Perugino  must  be  our  choice.  The  two 
men  would  have  understood  one  another.^ 

Memling,  besides  being  himself  an  industrious  painter,  must  have 

1 Marcantonio  Michiel  saw  a portrait  of  Memling  in  Cardinal  Grimani’s  collection  at 
Venice  in  1521.  It  depicted  a man  “ circa  di  anni  65,  piutosto  grasso  che  altramente  e 
rubicundo.” 

2 A half-length  St.  Barbara,  the  property  of  Sir  George  Radford,  not  mentioned,  so 
far  as  I can  discover,  by  any  writer  on  Memling,  appears  to  be  a genuine  work,  judging 
from  a photograph. 


STUDIO  PICTURES 


243 


given  work  in  his  studio  to  several  assistants.  Hence  no  two 
critics  agree  in  drawing  up  a list  of  his  works,  for  some  accept  as  by 
his  own  hand  paintings  which  others  ascribe  to  pupils  or  helpers. 
When  an  artist  designs  a picture  and  himself  paints  the  more 
important  parts  of  it,  it  is  his  picture  ; but  is  it  his  if  only  the  design 
and  the  oversight  have  come  from  him  ? Or  what  are  we  to  say  of 
a replica  of  some  finished  work  done  under  his  eye,  touched  here 
and  there  by  his  hand,  and  probably  sold  by  him  as  his  own  work  ? 
Evidently  there  can  be  all  grades  of  authenticity  between  a painting 
entirely  conceived,  drawn,  coloured,  and  finished  by  the  artist 
himself,  and  one  for  which  he  provided  only  a preliminary  sketch, 
leaving  all  the  work  to  be  carried  out  by  some  trusted  assistant, 
who  in  his  turn  may  have  had  the  help  of  a drapery-man  or 
landscapist  for  certain  parts.  Friedlander  seems  to  me  to  include 
in  his  list  of  Memling’s  pictures  several  belonging  to  the  studio  class. 
Such  is  the  half-length  Madonna  in  the  Kaufmann  Collection,  an 
imitation  of  which  one  stage  further  removed  from  our  artist  was 
in  the  Bourgeois  sale  (1904).  Both  are  versions  of  the  Madonna  of 
the  Nieuwenhoven  diptych,  which  was  Memling’s  own  from  start  to 
finish.  Again,  there  are  two  enthroned  Madonnas  at  Berlin  neither 
of  which  seems  to  express  fully  the  mind  and  hand  of  our  artist ; 
indeed,  a famous  critic  felt  the  deficiency  so  strongly  that  he  was 
tempted  to  call  the  example  formerly  in  the  Thiem  Collection  a 
forgery.  To  me  it  appears  like  the  work  of  an  assistant  done 
under  the  master’s  eye  in  the  last  period  of  his  life.  The  beautiful 
enthroned  Virgin  with  St.  George  in  the  National  Gallery,  though 
perhaps  sold  out  of  Memling’s  studio  and  painted  with  his  co- 
operation, can  hardly  be  entirely  his  handiwork,  while  the  half- 
length  Madonna  in  the  same  Gallery  looks  like  the  work  of  an 
assistant  throughout.  I can  only  accept  with  similar  reserve  the 
Buda-Pesth  triptych,  the  St.  Jerome  in  the  Burckhardt  Collection 
at  Basle,  the  Louvre  St.  Sebastian,  and  the  six  little  panels  in  the 
Strasburg  Museum.  As  for  the  organ  panels  at  Antwerp  from 
Najera  Abbey  in  Spain,  about  the  authenticity  of  which  opinion 
has  been  so  divided,  no  one  any  longer  doubts  Memling’s  responsi- 
bility for  their  design,  but  an  experienced  assistant  could  have  done 
the  actual  painting  as  well  as  he,  for  to  paint  on  so  large  a scale 
was  not  Memling’s  gift.  I will  not  deny  that  he  may  have  put  his 


244 


HANS  MEMLING 


hand  to  these  pictures,  but  there  is  no  evidence  on  the  face  of  them 
that  compels  us  to  think  so. 

A stage  further  removed  from  the  master-mind  are  the  works 
evidently  by  his  followers,  some  of  which  can  be  grouped  together 
as  by  one  or  another  recognizable  but  nameless  individual.  Refer- 
ence has  been  made  above  to  the  painter  of  the  Northbrook  Virgin 
and  another  in  the  Sommier  Collection,  both  shown  at  Bruges  in 
1902  (Nos.  140  and  215).  There  is  a third  half-length  at  Boston 
which  seems  not  far  removed  from  them.  The  painter  must  have 
been  one  of  Memling’s  direct  pupils.  Further  research  will  probably 
add  to  his  list.  Another  follower  may  claim  the  Deposition  in  the 
Otlet  sale,  which  came  out  of  a convent  of  Carmelite  nuns  at 
Valladolid,  and  was  shown  at  the  Golden  Fleece  Exhibition  (1907, 
No.  197) ; his  also  was  the  Crucifixion  which  belonged  to  the  Hon. 
John  Hay  at  Washington,  and  perhaps  also  the  Deposition  triptych 
which  was  burnt  when  in  the  Kaufmann  Collection,^  though  that  was 
considered  by  good  authorities  to  be  an  early  work  of  Memling 
himself.  Recurring  again  to  the  enthroned  Madonna  in  Berlin 
from  the  Thiem  Collection,  it  will  be  profitable  to  compare  it  with 
similar  pictures  at  Frankfurt  (No.  109)  and  in  the  Chapel  Royal 
at  Granada.  The  stone  thrones  in  the  last  two  with  their  sculp- 
tured decorations  are  exactly  alike,  and  resemble  that  in  the  first ; 
the  Virgin’s  skirt  draperies  are  identical  in  both,  and  the  sentiment 
of  all  three  pictures  is  similar,  yet  no  two  of  them  are  by  the  same 
hand.  All  three  pictures  are  obviously  of  Memling’s  school,  but 
each  is  removed  a little  further  than  its  predecessor  from  the 
master’s  own  work.  Memling’s  pretty  Virgo  inter  Virgines  in  the 
Louvre  is  well  imitated  in  a diptych  at  Munich,  where  the  donor 
is  presented  by  St.  George  and  the  two  halves  have  a common 
foreground  and  landscape.  An  Adoration  of  the  Magi  which  was 
in  the  Odiot  sale  (1889),  and  before  that  in  the  Ocampo  Collection, 
bears  the  forged  signature  “ El  Bosco  fe.”  It  is  a picture  of  fine 
quality  painted  at  Bruges  about  1490  by  an  artist  of  some  inde- 
pendence, though  strongly  under  the  influence  of  Memling,  A 
triptych  in  the  Palazzo  Durazzo  at  Genoa  with  the  Descent  from 
the  Cross  and  attendant  figures,  all  half-lengths,  shows  imitation 
of  the  diptych  by  Hugo  van  der  Goes.  A copy  at  Granada  of  one 

1 Bruges  Exhibition  (1902),  No.  92. 


SCHOOL  PICTURES 


245 


of  the  wings  of  that  diptych  is  attributed  to  Memling  on  reasonable 
grounds.  In  the  Pacully  Collection  (Paris)  was  a St.  Ildefonso 
kneeling  before  the  Virgin  painted  by  an  artist  who  must  have  been 
formed  byMemling.  The  picture  was  shown  at  the  Bruges  Exhibition 
(1902,  No.  111).  Several  details  connect  it  with  the  St.  Bertin 
panels.  The  architecture  of  the  screen  and  the  head  of  the  saint 
may  be  cited.  This  would  lead  us  to  look  for  the  artist  in  Hainault, 
but  no  other  picture  by  him  has  been  recognized. 

Portraits  attributed  to  Memling,  but  to  which  doubt  attaches, 
are  in  the  Uffizi,  the  Cardon  Collection  (Brussels),  and  elsewhere.  One 
which  may  have  been  genuine  was  offered  to  me  for  purchase  about 
thirty  years  ago  in  Italy.  I have  not  seen  it  since.  Spurious 
Memling  portraits,  by  an  identified  modern  forger  of  great  .skill, 
have  made  their  appearance  in  auction-rooms  in  recent  years.  I owe 
to  M.  Salomon  Reinach  an  admirable  coloured  reproduction  of  one 
of  them,  a clever  work.  Photographs  of  others  have  appeared  in 
some  illustrated  sale-catalogues. 

No  drawings  by  Memling  are  known,  but  a portrait-head  in 
Rotterdam  Museum,  another  in  Mr.  Henry  Oppenheimer’s  collection, 
a fine  Saint’s  head  in  the  Louvre,  and  a St.  George  with  Princess 
and  Dragon  formerly  in  the  Lanna  Collection  have  been  attri- 
buted to  him  by  different  critics. 

The  foregoing  are  merely  a selection,  representative  but  very 
far  from  complete,  of  existing  works  which  may  be  attributed  to 
Memling’s  studio  or  to  his  immediate  followers.  It  is  hard  to  draw 
the  line  between  followers  and  imitators.  The  impression  made 
by  Memling  upon  artists  of  the  next  generation  was  deep  and 
abiding.  He  also  influenced  his  contemporaries  to  a greater  or  less 
extent.  Before  passing  on  to  the  work  of  the  Bruges  School  after 
Memling’s  death  those  contemporaries  must  receive  such  attention 
at  our  hands  as  each  of  them  may  seem  to  deserve. 


CHAPTER  XVIII 


MINOR  BRUGES  PAINTERS  OF  THE  FIFTEENTH  CENTURY 

When  Memling  died  in  1495  the  great  days  of  Bruges  were  over. 
The  prosperity  of  the  city  as  a centre  of  trade  and  manufacture 
had  been  high  under  the  fostering  care  of  Duke  Philip  the  Good. 
His  great  riches — his  income  was  twice  that  of  the  Pope — were 
drawn  from  the  general  wealth  of  his  industrious  subjects  and  from 
the  trade  largely  handled  by  foreign  merchants,  especially  Italians 
and  Spaniards.  He  had  done  the  best  he  knew  to  encourage  them, 
and  had  battened  on  their  success.  In  1456  Bruges  numbered 
150,000  inhabitants,  a vast  population  for  a mediaeval  city.  As 
many  as  a hundred  and  fifty  foreign  ships  were  known  to  enter  her 
docks  in  a single  day.  Here  the  Duke  generally  resided  ; hither 
he  came  for  all  the  greatest  ceremonies  of  his  reign,  such  as  the 
celebration  of  his  nuptials  with  Isabella  of  Portugal  and  the 
foundation  of  the  Order  of  the  Golden  Fleece.  But  when  Charles 
the  Rash  succeeded  his  father  in  1477,  evil  times  followed,  and  both 
nature  and  the  politicians  combined  to  ruin  what  industry  had 
produced.  The  Zwyn,  by  which  vessels  obtained  access  to  Bruges 
from  the  sea,  set  itself  determinedly  to  silt  up.  Vigorous  efforts 
were  made  to  resist  its  evil  tendency,  but  the  sand  conquered,  and 
Bruges  presently  ceased  to  be  a port  of  any  consequence.  After 
1494  sea-going  ships  could  no  longer  reach  her.  Soon  afterward 
no  less  than  five  thousand  of  her  citizens  were  unemployed,  and 
emigration  was  rapidly  taking  place.  Even  so  the  city  might  have 
maintained  its  settled  position  as  a world-exchange,  had  it  not  been 
for  political  disturbances,  seditions,  and  the  blunders  of  govern- 
ment. When  security  disappeared  the  great  merchants  vanished 
with  it,  and  settled  at  Antwerp,  just  as  about  a century  later  and 
for  a like  reason  the  more  enterprising  of  them  were  to  abandon 
Antwerp  for  Amsterdam.  As  Bruges  declined  Antwerp  advanced. 

246 


THE  DECLINE  OF  BRUGES 


247 


Maximilian  and  Mary  had  been  married  at  Bruges  in  1477  ; it  was 
at  Antwerp  that  the  wedding  of  Philip  the  Fair  and  Joanna  of 
Aragon  took  place.  Bruges  became  a city  of  memories,  Antwerp 
of  hopes.  Bruges  of  necessity  clung  to  the  past,  Antwerp  looked 
to  the  future.  The  arts  of  the  two  cities  were  affected  by  the  spirit 
of  the  folk.  The  artists  of  Bruges  were  conservative  ; those  of 
Antwerp  adventurous.  No  new  thing  will  come  out  of  the  failing 
centre.  It  is  to  Antwerp  that  we  must  turn  to  watch  the  birth  of 
the  Flemish  Renaissance.  That  was  incorporated  by  Antwerp  as 
Bruges  had  incorporated  the  later  middle-age. 

To  write  the  history  of  a decline  is  a thankless  task.  We  watch 
growth  with  pleasure,  decay  with  disgust.  If,  however,  instead 
of  fixing  our  eyes  as  historians  upon  the  fortunes  of  a school  of  art, 
we  turn  as  amateurs  to  individual  works,  though  produced  at  a 
time  of  decay,  many  will  be  found  to  possess  qualities  of  beauty. 
They  may  be  compared  to  fading  leaves,  harbingers  of  winter,  yet 
in  themselves  brilliant  and  a little  weird,  twisting  into  strange 
forms  out  of  which  life  is  passing,  but  at  any  given  moment,  when 
we  forget  their  doom,  visibly  and  positively  beautiful. 

Despairing  to  make  the  discussion  of  them  interesting,  I 
relegated  to  the  end  of  the  last  chapter  such  mention  as  could  not 
be  avoided  of  a number  of  school-pictures,  close  to  Memling  in 
style,  painted  by  unidentified  artists.  There  remain,  however,  a 
few  anonymous  painters,  contemporaries  and  followers  of  Memling 
at  Bruges,  to  whom  groups  of  works  have  been  assigned.  The 
most  important  of  these  men  has  been  nicknamed  the  “ Master  of 
the  Ursula  Legend,”  or,  for  short,  the  Ursula  Master.  No  doubt 
his  name  is  one  of  several  recorded  in  the  Bruges  registers,  but  we 
have  no  means  of  identifying  it.  He  must  have  been  active  during 
about  the  last  twenty-five  years  of  Memling’s  life,  say  1470-95, 
and  may  have  predeceased  or  survived  the  master  who  had  so 
strong  an  influence  upon  him.  He  does  not,  however,  appear  to 
have  been  Memling’s  pupil.  For  all  we  know  he  may  have  been 
the  Pieter  Casenbroot,  cited  by  Hulin  as  a leading  Bruges  artist, 
who  became  a master  in  1459  and  lived  on  into  the  early  years  of 
the  sixteenth  century,  frequently  holding  high  positions  in  his 
guild.  No  works  by  Casenbroot  are  known.  But  there  are 
several  other  artists  in  like  case,  so  we  must  make  shift  with  the 


248  MINOR  BRUGES  PAINTERS  OF  FIFTEENTH  CENTURY 


nickname  for  our  painter.  The  altar-piece  wings  in  the  Convent 
of  the  Blaek  Sisters  at  Bruges  are  his  most  considerable  work, 
telling  the  Legend  of  St.  Ursula  on  eight  panels,  and  introducing 
full-length  figures  of  the  proud  Church  and  a much  more  attractive 
Synagogue  on  two  more.  Assistants  deeorated  the  backs  with 
inferior  grisailles.  The  interest  of  these  pietures  lies  largely  in  the 
fact  that  they  are  an  illustration  of  the  legend  earlier  in  date  than 
Memling’s.  Neither  artist  borrowed  from  the  other  ; but  Memling 
makes  of  eaeh  incident  a pieture,  the  Ursula  Master’s  are  illustra- 
tions and  nothing  more.  The  latter  contain  some  nice  figures, 
fine  costumes,  entertaining  incidents,  elaborate  arehiteetural  back- 
grounds drawn  in  poor  perspective,  and  quite  a number  of  genre 
details  which  admit  us  to  sight  of  the  way  things  were  done  in  the 
vanished  past.  None  of  them  is  so  amusing  as  that  of  the  Voyage 
of  the  Virgins  by  another  unidentified  artist,  which  made  a brief 
appearanee  in  the  sale-room  and  has  vanished  again.^  There  the 
ladies  were  paeked  in  three  boats  floating  near  the  walls  of  a castle, 
and  all  its  battlements  and  bridges  were  filled  with  young  knights 
in  armour,  dozens  of  them,  greatly  exeited,  as  well  they  might  be, 
with  so  much  beauty  drifting  by.  They  launch  boats  and  hasten 
towards  the  pretty  girls  with  gestures  of  delight.  Martyrdom  is 
the  last  thing  that  artist  was  thinking  of. 

The  most  interesting  of  the  Ursula  Master’s  panels  is  the  eighth, 
in  which  he  introduces  us  into  the  church  where  the  relies  of 
St.  Ursula  are  theobjeet  of  veneration  by  a number  of  pilgrims.  It 
is  the  best  representation  that  remains  to  us  of  what  the  interior  of  a 
mediaeval  pilgrimage  church  was  like,  and  how  the  pilgrims  behaved. 
The  relies  are  in  a fine  chdsse  above  the  altar-piece,  on  which  is  a 
picture  of  the  saint  with  her  maidens  gathered  beneath  her  mantle. 
Pilgrims  approaeh  from  the  main  body  of  the  chureh  and  kneel  on 
the  chapel  floor  around  the  altar.  Most  of  them  are  well-to-do 
folk,  but  one  looks  like  a sort  of  professional  pilgrim,  dressed  for  the 
part,  bottle  and  all.  The  furniture  of  the  altar  is  worth  notice. 
A sister  stands  at  the  end  of  it,  with  an  open  book  and  a number  of 
coins  lying  alongside,  the  gifts  of  previous  pilgrims,  I suppose,  and 
hint  of  what  is  expeeted  from  the  new-comers.  Further  back  at  a 

1 I have  a photograph  of  it.  It  was  No.  14  in  some  sale  of  about  1890-1900.  It 
measured  23  x 41  cm.  and  on  the  back  were  saints  against  a red  background. 


THE  URSULA  MASTER 


249 


table  another  sister  is  selling  some  unidentifiable  objects,  appar- 
ently stick-like  in  form — candles  perhaps,  but  they  may  be  pilgrim’s 
signs.  Votive  offerings  are  fastened  to  a bar  over  her  head — a 
sword  and  models  of  arms,  legs,  whole  bodies,  a ship,  and  so  forth — 
memorials  of  favours  desired  or  obtained.  There  is  a notable 
atmosphere  of  everyday  use  and  wont  about  the  whole  scene — the 
atmosphere  of  the  market-place  rather  than  of  a religious  act. 
Though  the  picture  gives  us  little  aesthetic  pleasure  it  is  an  invalu- 
able document  of  record. 

The  little  ladies  of  St.  Ursula  recall  the  Wise  and  Foolish 
Virgins  in  a curious  picture  at  Berlin,  the  upper  and  lower  parts  of 
which  are  obviously  by  different  hands.  Aloft  is  the  Last  Judgment 
painted  by  some  follower  of  Roger,  to  whom  also  the  resurrected 
nudes  of  the  middle  distance  are  due,  but  the  Virgins  in  the  fore- 
ground, if  not  by  the  Ursula  Master,  are  by  a painter  closely  allied 
to  him.  An  altar-piece  in  the  Kaufmann  Collection  is  our  artist’s 
most  finished  work  on  a large  scale.  It  is  a thoroughly  conven- 
tional picture  : an  enthroned  St.  Anne  in  the  midst  with  the 

Virgin  seated  on  the  step  below  and  the  Child  in  her  lap.  Four 
saints  stand  or  sit  around,  and  to  left  and  right  are  landscape 
distances  beyond  a walled  garden — in  all  essentials  the  same  com- 
position as  that  of  Memling’s  triptych  of  Sir  John  Donne.  Helped 
by  a strong  convention  and  a good  model  the  Ursula  Master  here 
attains  a better  pictorial  unity  than  in  the  series  from  which  he 
is  named.  Another  St.  Anne  with  Virgin  and  Child,  identical  in 
types,  is  found  presenting  Anne  de  Blasere  on  the  surviving  half  of 
a memorial  diptych,  which,  after  disappearing  from  view  at  a Paris 
sale  in  1852,  has  reappeared  in  the  collection  of  Mr.  Philip  Lehman 
in  New  York.'  Both  these  pictures  date  from  about  1480.  A 
small  altar-piece  by  our  artist  is  in  the  town  gallery  at  Freiburg  i.  B. 
Another,  a Virgin  and  Child  with  four  saints,  which  was  in  the 
Beurnonville  and  Mege  sales,  has  been  wrongly  attributed  to  him. 
It  is  by  some  follower  of  Bouts. 

The  Ursula  Master  was  also  employed  to  paint  the  half-length 
Madonnas  so  fashionable  in  his  day.  Examples  by  him  are  in  the 

' Reinach’s  Repertoire,  i,  p.  130 ; F.  J.  Mather  in  Art  in  America,  Oct,  1915,  p.  269. 
Anne  de  Blasere’s  first  husband  was  a Nieuwenhoven,  doubtless  a relative  of  Memling’s 
employer. 


250  MINOR  BRUGES  PAINTERS  OF  FIFTEENTH  CENTURY 


Museum  at  Aix-la-Chapelle,  in  the  Winthrop  and  Morgan  Colleetions 
in  New  York,  and  in  the  Van  Stolk  Collection  at  Haarlem  (No.  444). 
The  first-mentioned  repeats  a well-known  composition  by  Roger 
which  was  frequently  reproduced  in  the  first  decade  of  the  sixteenth 
century.  The  Winthrop  panel  reproduces  another  Roger  school 
type,  in  which  the  Virgin  holds  the  Child  with  both  hands.  To 
these  types  our  artist  has  added  angels,  in  the  one  case  a pair  of 
them  holding  a crown  over  the  Virgin’s  head,  in  the  other  grouped 
into  a living  arch  above  her.  Neither  feature  was  original.  Pairs 
of  crown-holding  angels  were  a school  property,  and  the  arch  of 
angels  finds  a parallel  in  pictures  by  the  Maitre  de  Moulins  and 
several  other  named  or  nameless  painters.  The  more  the  Ursula 
Master  depended  upon  school  traditions,  the  better  were  his 
pictures.  He  was  sounder  as  craftsman  than  as  designer.  His 
own  imagination  did  not  carry  him  far.^ 

He  was  also  employed  to  make  portraits.  In  the  Episcopal 
Seminary  at  Bruges  is  a wall-panel  decoratively  painted  with  the 
likenesses  of  Maximilian  and  Mary  of  Burgundy,  effectively  treated 
for  their  position  and  purpose.^  A more  serious  and  finished  work 
is  the  bust-portrait  of  a young  man  with  hands  joined,  which  is  now 
in  the  J.  G.  Johnson  Collection  (No.  327).  This  was  obviously  half 
of  a diptych.  The  other  half  can  scarcely  have  been  a Madonna, 
because  she  appears  in  the  background  of  the  portrait-panel,  seated 
on  a throne  in  a garden  courtyard  with  the  harping  and  luting  angel 
pair  beside  her.  One  of  the  towers  of  Bruges  is  in  the  background 
on  one  side,  the  landscape  on  the  other  being  borrowedfrom  Memling. 
The  young  man  portrayed  is  neither  a beauty  nor  a genius,  and  the 
artist  has  done  nothing  to  put  forward  even  the  best  that  was  in  him, 
but  has  painted  him  with  serious  care.  If  his  head  looks  wooden, 
probably  so  it  was.  Other  portraits  assigned  to  this  artist  are  not 
by  him,  and  have  already  been  described  as  the  work  of  Justus 
of  Ghent. 

The  Bruges  Master  of  the  Lucia  Legend  was  so  named  by  Fried- 
lander  after  a picture  in  the  Church  of  St.  Jacques.  It  is  an 

^ Other  Madonnas  by  him  were  in  the  Spitzer  and  Sir  Charles  Turner  sales.  Fried- 
lander  attributes  to  him  a diptych  in  the  Fairfax-Murray  Collection  dated  1486,  and  a 
triptych  formerly  belonging  to  the  Duke  of  Parma. 

* Reproduced  in  the  Vienna  Jahrbuch  for  1913. 


THE  LUCIA  LEGEND  MASTER 


251 


assemblage  of  three  incidents  side  by  side  on  a long  panel,  divided 
one  from  another  by  a slender  decorated  column.  In  one  of  them  a 
couple  of  oxen  harnessed  to  ropes  are  trying  to  move  the  saint,  who 
stands  unconcerned  and,  as  it  were,  rooted  to  the  ground.  Even 
her  drapery  is  not  affected  by  the  cords.  Nothing  could  be  less 
dramatic.  There  is  no  pull  to  the  oxen  and  little  astonishment  on 
the  faces  of  the  spectators.  The  subject  was  entirely  beyond  the 
artist’s  powers.  He  suffered  from  the  general  limitation  of  his 
school.  If  he  possessed  any  originality,  it  showed  itself  in  the  build 
of  his  women.  He  makes  them  disproportionately  tall  in  relation 
to  the  size  of  their  heads  and  hands.  We  can  observe  a tendency 
to  cheapen  the  work,  to  produce  an  effect  with  least  expenditure  of 
means.  Thus  the  brocaded  dorser  behind  the  judge,  instead  of 
being  painted  with  the  elaborate  care  and  love  for  its  rich  detail 
which  the  Van  Eycks  had  devoted  to  such  decorative  pieces,  is 
merely  an  outlined  pattern  on  a coloured  ground.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  faces  of  male  models  interest  this  artist  in  proportion  as 
they  manifest  character.  His  women  are  dolls,  but  his  bad  men 
are  at  least  human.  His  most  important  picture  was  the  altar- 
piece  for  the  guild  of  the  Drie  Sanctinnen,  now  in  Brussels 
Museum.  Weale  says  that  it  was  set  up  in  the  Church  of  Our  Lady 
at  Bruges  in  1489.  It  depicts  the  Virgin  and  Child  surrounded  by 
ten  saintesses,  with  flower-hedges  behind  them  on  either  side,  and 
a landscape  background.  Gerard  David  belonged  to  the  guild  in 
question,  and  must  often  have  said  his  prayers  in  the  presence  of 
this  picture.  We  shall  see  that  he  in  his  turn  imitated  it,  just  as 
its  painter  had  borrowed  parts  of  it  from  his  predecessors.  Thus  he 
copied  the  Virgin  and  Child  out  of  Memling’s  Donne  triptych  and 
the  Magdalen,  who  kneels  in  front,  from  Roger’s  Entombment  in 
the  Uffizi.  Fortunately  none  of  the  ladies  are  standing,  so  that  we 
are  not  troubled  with  any  over-long  proportions  in  their  flgures. 
Moreover,  their  heads  seem  relatively  larger,  and  perhaps  the 
artist  had  overcome  that  weakness.  St.  Catherine,  instead  of  having 
a broken  wheel  for  emblem  at  her  feet,  wears  a garment  embroidered 
all  over  with  wheels — a novel  treatment.  Some  of  the  women  seem 
to  have  been  painted  as  portraits  from  the  life,  and  there  is  more 
variety  in  their  poses  and  grouping  than  might  be  expected.  The 
chord  of  colour  of  the  whole  work  is  unusually  light,  and  the  picture 


252  MINOR  BRUGES  PAINTERS  OF  FIFTEENTH  CENTURY 


may  have  served  pretty  well  as  a decoration  over  an  altar-piece,  but 
no  one  can  call  it  a great  work  of  art.  It  marks  a stage  of  decline 
and  shows  how  the  traditions  of  the  best  days  of  the  school  were 
beginning  to  wear  out.  We  know  of  two  more  St.  Catherines  by  the 
same  painter,  one  in  the  J.  G.  Johnson  Collection  (No.  326),  the 
other  in  Pisa  Gallery — both  single  standing  figures  before  landscape 
backgrounds,  in  which,  as  in  both  pictures  above  described,  the 
towers  of  Bruges  stand  up  against  the  sky.  These  are  mature 
works,  with  heads  no  longer  over-small.  They  are  decorative  and 
pleasing,  not  lacking  in  a certain  dignity,  nor  calling  upon  the 
artist  for  the  exercise  of  powers  of  observation,  composition,  or 
imagination  which  he  did  not  possess.  A triptych  with  a Pieta 
on  the  central  panel  and  a saint  on  each  wing  was  for  sale  at  the 
Spanish  Gallery  in  London  in  1916.  It  shows  a more  elaborate 
view  of  Bruges  than  the  others,  but  the  town  is  placed  by  a broad 
river  in  a hill  country.  St.  Catherine  is  once  more  the  best  figure. 
It  is  evident  that  this  Lucia  Master  might  have  been  a good  portrait- 
painter,  and  someone  may  yet  identify  existing  portraits  as  his. 
Misfortune  of  birth  placed  him  in  a day  when  the  fashion  was  to 
demand  religious  pictures  from  artists  devoid  of  rehgious  feeling. 
There  was  neither  passion  nor  fervour  in  him.  What  entertained 
him  was  the  faces  of  men,  faces  of  well-marked  character  and  varied 
expression.  He  cared  little  about  saints,  and  had  no  imagination 
to  bear  him  into  fairy-land.  Bruges  was  his  home,  and  he  meant 
you  to  know  it.  He  would  sooner  have  painted  her  actual  streets 
and  gardens  than  the  Elysian  fields,  and  the  people  he  met  every 
day  than  the  inhabitants  of  Paradise.  Unfortunately  for  him  he 
had  to  make  his  bread  and  butter  by  painting  saints  according  to 
formula.  He  probably  did  with  them  the  best  he  could.  If  he  were 
known  by  only  one  picture  we  might  have  passed  him  by,  but  when 
a group  is  identified  as  by  a single  painter  he  has  to  be  noticed. 

In  Buckingham  Palace  is  a brilliantly  painted  picture  (a  con- 
temporary copy  according  to  Bodenhausen)  by  an  otherwise 
unknown  Bruges  artist,  akin  to  but  more  gifted  than  the  Ursula 
Master.  The  subject  is  the  Virgo  inter  Virgines.  They  are  grouped 
on  a flowery  mead,  the  Virgin  seated  on  a bank.  The  nascent 
influence  of  Gerard  David  is  perceptible  as  well  as  memories  of 
Memling  and  of  the  Lucia  Master.  Small  angels  support  a carpet 


ARCHAISTIC  PICTURES 


253 


canopy  high  in  the  air  above  the  Virgin.  Bodenhausen  thinks  that 
in  the  original  this  was  a dorser  behind  the  throne,  but  is  it  not 
rather  a sign  of  the  approach  of  that  bizarre  treatment  of  figures  and 
accessories  which  characterized  the  Antwerp  Mannerists  of  the  next 
half-eentury  ? The  picture  in  question  dates  from  about  1480. 

Delicate  and  delightfully  painted  triptychs  of  about  the  same 
date,  but  by  artists  more  gifted  and  skilled  than  the  two  upon  whom 
we  have  spent  so  much  space,  are  in  the  Sigmaringen  ^ and  Berlin  ^ 
Galleries  respectively.  The  former  is  marked  with  the  year  1473. 
Portraits  of  a pair  of  donors  are  on  the  wings  of  each,  the  central 
panel  of  one  bearing  a Madonna,  of  the  other  a Crueifixion.  They 
are  instinct  with  the  spirit  of  the  early  works  of  Memling.  A 
wedding  picture,  which  when  in  the  Duke  of  Sutherland’s  possession 
was  fabled  to  depict  the  marriage  of  Henry  VI  and  Margaret  of 
Anjou,  is  less  good  though  interesting  work  of  about  1475.  It  is 
worth  comparing  with  a similar  subject  painted  in  one  of  the  com- 
partments of  the  polyptych  from  Ghistelles,  near  Bruges,  which 
passed  into  the  Dollfus  Colleetion. 

Toward  the  close  of  the  century  Bruges  painters,  beside  repeat- 
ing as  they  freely  did  the  compositions  of  Roger,  and  multiplying 
his  half-length  Madonnas  almost  indefinitely,  turned  their  attention 
to  the  Van  Eycks  and  Campin  and  introduced  an  archaistic  fashion 
which  became  rather  popular.  We  shall  find  that  it  affected  even 
so  original  a painter  as  Quentin  Massys  and  that  it  was  continued 
far  down  into  the  sixteenth  eentury.  The  multiplication  of  heads 
of  Christ  of  the  type  above  described  ( p.  235)  is  hardly  a fair  example, 
for  such  pictures  were  considered  a true  likeness.  A better  early 
instance  is  a triptych  which  was  in  the  Otlet  sale  (No.  5)  where  the 
Crucifixion  on  the  central  panel  is  taken  from  Hubert  van  Eyck, 
while  the  donors  and  saints  on  the  wings  are  painted  in  the  Bruges 
style  of  about  1480.  A Magdalen  has  been  introduced  embracing  the 
foot  of  the  Cross,  and  the  composition  thus  enriched  was  presently 
taken  over  by  Quentin  and  repeated  three  times.  A Bruges 
artist  of  about  1480  would  not  have  painted  the  Thieves  as  he  did 


1 Bruges  Exliibition  (1902),  No.  49.  The  donors  were  the  Burgomaster  Jan  de  Witte 
and  his  wife. 

^ Amtliche  Berichte,  Nov.  1907.  The  donors  were  Pieter  van  de  Woestyne  and 
his  wife. 

18 


254  MINOR  BRUGES  PAINTERS  OF  FIFTEENTH  CENTURY 

in  a Crucifixion  in  the  J.  G.  Johnson  Collection  (No.  323)  if  he  had 
not  been  acquainted  with  Campin’s  original,  but  he  did  not  make  a 
direct  copy  of  them  as  was  done  some  twenty  years  later  by  a fellow- 
townsman  who  produced  the  large  Crucifixion  which  still  remains 
in  its  place  in  St.  Saviour’s  at  Bruges.  Another  nameless  artist 
copied,'  with  changes,  the  Virgin  and  Child  from  Van  Eyck’s 
Dresden  triptych.  More  charming  is  the  repetition  of  Van  Eyck’s 
Virgin  in  a Church  which  yet  another  Bruges  painter  made  as  half 
of  a diptych  for  Christian  de  Hondt,  Abbot  of  the  Dunes,  in  the 
year  1499  ; an  excellent  portrait  of  the  Abbot  kneeling  at  a prie- 
dieu  in  his  comfortable  well-furnished  chamber  occupies  the  other 
wing.  On  the  outside,  when  the  diptych  was  closed,  was  a grisaille 
of  Christ  as  Salvator  Mundi  and  the  coats-of-arms  of  Abbot  and 
monastery  at  the  foot.  A later  Abbot,  Robert  Leclercq  (1519-57), 
a round-headed,  underbred,  comfortable-looking  person,  gave  this 
diptych  to  an  artist  of  his  day,  who  coloured  the  grisaille  Christ, 
painted  the  later  Abbot’s  arms  over  the  earlier,  and  filled  the  blank 
panel  with  an  excellent  portrait  of  Leclercq.  The  diptych  thus 
embellished  is  one  of  the  gems  of  the  Antwerp  Gallery. 

The  last  and  most  beautiful  of  the  Bruges  archaistic  paintings 
of  the  latest  days  of  the  fifteenth  century  to  which  we  need  refer  is 
the  half-length  Madonna  in  a landscape  which  is  in  the  Jacquemart- 
Andre  Gallery  in  Paris,  A Bruges  tower  in  the  background  identi- 
fies the  artist’s  home.  The  admirable  landscape  almost  carries  us 
back  to  Hubert.  The  gravity  of  the  treatment,  the  dignified 
drapery,  the  completeness  of  the  modelling  are  characteristic  of  an 
earlier  day,  but  there  are  many  details  which  fix  the  date  at  about 
the  year  1500  or  possibly  even  later.  Few,  if  any,  Madonna  pictures 
of  the  school  can  be  put  on  an  equality  with  this  singularly  dignified 
and  puzzling  work.  It  was  at  one  time  tentatively  ascribed  to  John 
Provost. 

Most  Flemish  artists  were  not  of  this  kind.  They  were  generally 
at  heart  men  of  this  world.  Their  imaginations  did  not  play  easily 
with  heavenly  things.  They  were  seldom  by  nature  religious.  The 
direct  fact  belonged  to  them.  If  they  had  to  paint  a martyrdom 
they  set  down  the  plain  brutal  story  without  passion  and  without 
hope.  Ribera’s  Apollo  skinning  Marsyas  and  Gerard  David’s  Unjust 
1 The  picture  belongs  to  Mrs.  Simpson  Carson.  Burlington  Mag.,  April  1909,  p.  49. 


PLATE  XI 


.1.  THE  MASTER  OE  ST.  BERTIN’S.  PREDELLA 
PAXEL.  BERLLN'.— p.  223. 


2.  FRENCH  SCHOOL.  DIPTYCH  OF  JEANNE 
DE  BOURBON.  CHANTILLY— p.  22(5. 


3.  BRUGES  ARTIST  (c.  1500).  COLL.  ANDRE'. 
p.  254. 


4.  THE  URSULA  MASTER.  A PILGRIMAGE 
CHAPEL.  BRUGES.— p.  248. 

[To  face  page  254. 


THE  ANDR^:  MADONNA 


255 


Judge  are  like  subjeets,  but  Ribera  elouded  his  drama  in  the  majesty 
of  shadow.  David  set  the  hideous  event  in  the  open  light  of  the 
market-plaee.  There  is  nothing  mystieal  about  mid  or  late  fifteenth 
century  religious  art.  The  foreign  element  in  Memling  carried 
him  a little  further  away  from  literalness,  but  not  far.  John  van 
Eyek’s  Arnolfini  portrait  contains  the  live  core  of  all  great  Flemish 
art.  There  exists  no  Madonna  picture  of  the  school  that  can  be 
plaeed  on  a level  with  the  best  of  the  Italians.  The  Andre  Madonna 
is  fine,  is  perhaps  as  fine  as  any  produced  in  the  North,  but  the  seers 
of  the  South  beheld  the  heavens  opened.  No  such  vision  shone 
beyond  the  Alps. 


CHAPTER  XIX 

BRABANT  PAINTERS  AFTER  ROGER  AND  BOUTS 


After  the  death  of  Roger  van  der  Weyden  at  Brussels  in  1464 
and  that  of  Dirk  Bouts  at  Louvain  in  1475,  no  painter  of  the  first 
rank  remained  in  either  of  those  cities.  Leaders  of  the  next  genera- 
tion of  artists  were  Memling  at  Bruges  and  Hugo  van  der  Goes  at 
Ghent,  with  that  independent  genius,  Jerome  Bosch,  to  follow  : 
we  shall  deal  with  him  in  due  course,  but  must  leave  him  out  of 
count  for  the  moment.  The  artists  who  were  to  be  active  in  the 
generation  that  followed  Memling’ s were  being  born  about  the  time 
when  Roger  died.  Chief  were  : 


Albert  Bouts  of  Louvain 
Colin  de  Coter  of  Brussels 
Gerard  David  of  Bruges 
Goswin  van  der  Weyden  of  Brussels 
Quentin  Massys  of  Louvain  and 
Antwerp  . . . . 

Mabuse  of  Antwerp 


born  about  1460 

„ „ 1460 

„ „ 1460 

„ „ 1463-5 

,,  in  1466 
„ about  1465-70 


Of  these  men,  Bosch,  Massys,  and  Mabuse  were  original  artists, 
who  heralded  and  exemplified  a new  artistic  epoch.  Albert  Bouts, 
Colin,  Goswin,  and  David  were  conservatives  who  continued  the 
traditions  and  often  closely  imitated  the  works  of  their  great  pre- 
decessors : Colin  those  of  Campin,  David  of  Memling,  Albert 

Bouts  of  his  father  Dirk  Bouts,  and  Goswin  of  his  grandfather, 
Roger.  The  four  conservatives  were  not  without  merits  of  their 
own,  as  we  shall  see,  but  they  were  the  ripe,  even  over-ripe,  fruit  of 
the  old  tree,  and  their  art  led  on  to  no  future  development.  With 
them  we  close  a chapter  of  art-history  ; with  the  others,  the 
progressives,  a new  chapter  opens.  We  will  deal  in  this  and  the 
succeeding  chapter  with  the  four  conservatives  and  some  of  their 

256 


ALBERT  BOUTS 


257 


unnamed  contemporaries.  It  will  be  convenient  to  take  Albert 
Bouts  first. 

When  Dirk  Bouts  died  his  two  sons,  Dirk  and  Albert,  carried 
on  the  business  of  picture  manufacturers  at  Louvain.  Dirk  junior 
died  in  1491,  leaving  a son  who  worked  as  a painter  at  Mechlin, 
but  no  pictures  by  either  father  or  son  are  known.  Albert  Bouts 
lived  to  a ripe  age ; a considerable  number  of  existing  pictures  are 
attributed  to  him  on  tolerably  solid  grounds.  He  was  a few  years 
older  than  Quentin  Massy s,  having  been  born  about  or  a little 
before  1460.  He  married  twice — in  1481  and  1491.  He  died,  almost 
a centenarian,  in  1549.  His  identification,  due  to  Hulin’s  observa- 
tions, is  derived  from  one  of  two  pictures  at  Brussels,  both  repre- 
senting the  Assumption  of  the  Virgin  (Nos.  534,  535),  and  evidently 
by  the  same  hand.  Molanus  records  that  Albert  Bouts  painted 
a picture  of  this  subject  and  presented  it  to  the  Church  of 
St.  Peter  at  Louvain.  The  Brussels  triptych  (534)  appears  to  be 
the  work  in  question,  for  the  arms  held  by  an  angel  over  the  heads 
of  the  donors  on  the  sinister  wing  are  composed  as  follows  : below, 
the  bearings  of  the  painters’  guild  ; above,  in  chief,  a pair  of  crossed 
quarrels  or  arbalest-bolts,  called  hout  in  Flemish  (in  punning 
reference  to  the  name  of  Bouts)  ; over  all  the  initial  A for  Albert. 
The  identification  seems  complete.  Here,  then,  we  have  the  por- 
traits of  Albert  and  his  second  wife.  With  such  a face  the  man 
could  not  be  a genius,  but  he  looks  and  doubtless  was  an  honest 
fellow,  the  hard-working  and  prosperous  head  of  a competent 
picture  factory. 

We  need  not  concern  ourselves  with  more  than  a small  selection 
of  the  many  works  now  attributed  with  reasonable  probability 
to  him.  None  of  them  is  inspired  ; none  strikes  out  a new  line  ; 
but  they  are  solidly  and  well  painted,  and  have  stood  the  test  of 
time.  If  Quentin  went  to  Albert  to  learn  the  technique  of  painting, 
he  went  to  a good  school.  The  afore-mentioned  Assumption  is 
a work  of  the  master’s  maturity,  and  shows  him  at  his  worst 
and  most  elaborate.  He  was  probably  immensely  proud  of  it, 
having  filled  it  with  every  detail  he  could  collect  within  the  area 
of  the  panels.  In  former  days  the  triptych  was  attributed  to 
Van  der  Goes,  and  we  can  easily  perceive  why.  Imitation  of 
Van  der  Goes  is  visible  in  it,  especially  in  some  of  the  Apostles’ 


258  BRABANT  PAINTERS  AFTER  ROGER  AND  BOUTS 


heads.  But  Albert  generally  contented  himself  with  slavishly 
following,  almost  copying,  his  father’s  designs.  Dirk  Bouts’ 
patterns  must  have  formed  a valuable  part  of  his  studio  equipment. 
Thus  the  son’s  Last  Supper  at  Brussels  repeats  the  composition  of 
the  father’s  notable  picture  at  Louvain.  The  Supper  at  Simon’s  in 
the  same  gallery  is  a hard  version,  with  some  changes,  of  the  picture 
by  the  elder  Bouts,  now  at  Berlin.  One  of  the  pair  of  wings, 
formerly  belonging  to  Mr.  Crews  but  now  in  the  collection  of 
Mr.  Leopold  Hirsch  (London),  copies  the  Moses  before  the  Burning 
Bush,  which  is  in  the  J.  G.  Johnson  Collection. 

The  Munich  and  Berlin  Annunciations  are  among  the  younger 
artist’s  most  successful  works,  but  their  success  is  due  to  the  close- 
ness with  which  they  follow  the  formula  of  a previous  generation. 
The  St.  Christopher  in  the  J.  G.  Johnson  Collection  ‘ goes  back  to 
the  father’s  admirable  wing  at  Munich  ; and  so  we  might  continue 
were  it  worth  while.  Though  Albert  Bouts  was  thus  unoriginal, 
his  pictures  are  not  without  a value  of  their  own  dependent  upon 
their  decorative  quality.  This  is  less  true  of  the  larger  ones. 
The  smaller  they  are  the  better.  Thus  there  is  in  the  possession 
of  Professor  Mather  at  Princetown  a delightful  little  enthroned 
Virgin  before  a landscape,  still  in  the  frame  the  artist  chose  for 
it,  with  a God  the  Father  painted  by  him  in  its  curved  pediment. 
The  artist  repeated  this  composition  with  a different  background 
on  a little  panel,  which  passed  through  the  hands  of  Messrs.  Dowdes- 
well.^  The  brilliancy  of  the  colours  and  the  fineness  of  the  work- 
manship endow  both  with  undeniable  charm,  while  the  necessary 
traditional  character  of  the  design  relieved  the  painter  from  any 
call  upon  his  inventiveness.  Another  little  Madonna  in  the  hands 
of  Mr.  Max  Rothschild  in  1916  is  a repetition,  as  far  as  the  figures 
are  concerned,  of  the  enthroned  Virgin  in  the  Chapel  Royal  at 
Granada,  and  possesses  similar  merits.  A St.  Jerome  in  Penitence 
in  the  Kaufmann  Collection  (with  a tiny  Magdalen  carried  aloft 
by  angels  in  the  background  and  other  legendary  incidents)  is  an 
example  of  the  artist’s  conservatism.  We  have  only  to  compare 

1 In  the  Louvre  is  a drawing  (Phot.  Giraudon,  420)  elosely  conneeted  with  this  picture. 

2 I owe  photographs  of  these  two  pictures  to  the  kindness  of  the  Spanish  Gallery 
and  Messrs.  Dowdeswell  respectively.  In  the  Museum  at  Worcester,  Mass.,  U.S.A., 
is  a good  example  of  this  artist’s  Madonnas — a Virgin  and  Child  with  an  Angel. 


ALBERT  BOUTS 


259 


it  with  the  similar  Jeromes  of  the  David  Sehool  to  see  how  far 
Albert  Bouts  lagged  behind  the  fashion.  He  could  not,  however, 
entirely  fail  to  move  with  the  times.  The  Assumption  triptych 
or  a pair  of  wings  likewise  in  the  Kaufmann  Collection  (Berlin), 
both  of  his  mature  period,  shows,  if  not  an  advance,  at  all  events 
some  change  in  style  from  that  of  his  father.  The  landscape 
is  original — disagreeably  so.  However  far  off  the  trees  may  be, 
they  are  painted  as  separate  growths  like  weeds  in  a bed.  Rocks 
are  tiresomely  broken  up  into  pieces  and  fitted  together  as  by  a 
rude  Cyclopean  mason.  Detail  is  added  to  detail,  and  the  distance 
is  as  full  of  hard  and  sharp  features  as  the  foreground.  The  old 
love  of  fine  finish  has  degraded  here  into  a pettifogging  multi- 
plication of  insignificant  minutiae. 

Albert  Bouts’  shop  provided  devotional  pictures  of  well-recog- 
nized types  for  those  requiring  them.  Such  were  the  heads  of 
the  Man  of  Sorrows  and  the  Mater  Dolorosa,  either  singly  or  in 
pairs,  whereof  many  examples  still  exist.  It  will  suffice  to  mention 
a pair  in  the  Ruffo  de  Bonneval  Sale  and  other  replicas  in  the 
Hoogendijk  Collection  and  the  Lyons  Museum.  There  are  more 
elsewhere.  In  these  all  the  horrors  of  the  bloody  Crown  of  Thorns, 
wounded  hands,  and  the  like  are  insisted  on  without  any  dramatic 
power  or  evocation  of  pity.  Slightly  different  in  detail,  but 
similar  in  type,  are  a pair  in  the  Bock  Collection, ‘ of  which  replicas 
or  copies  might  be  named.  In  all  these  examples,  the  old  tradition 
of  the  local  school  is  closely  adhered  to.  But  there  exists  a single 
head  of  Christ,  not  crowned  with  thorns,  which  was  in  the 
De  Somzee  Collection,  and  is  greatly  superior  to  the  foregoing  group. 
This  was  attributed  to  Quentin  Massys,  and  bears  a superficial 
resemblance  to  his  handiwork.  Its  merit  is  due  to  the  fact  that  it 
follows  closely  the  original  by  John  van  Eyck,  now  in  the  possession 
of  Messrs.  Browne  & Browne,  of  Newcastle.  If  the  ascription  to 
Albert  Bouts  is  correct — and  it  is  by  no  means  certain — it  shows  him 
at  his  best,  not  however  pointing  the  way  for  Quentin  Massys,  but 
rather  imitating  him  at  a time  when  he  had  advanced  far  beyond 
the  highest  point  ever  attained  by  Albert. 

A nameless  artist  of  about  1480,  whom  I will  call  for  purposes 
of  identification  the  Master  of  the  Solomons,  painted  for  his  master- 

1 Diisseldorf  Ex.  (1904),  No.  145. 


260  BRABANT  PAINTERS  AFTER  ROGER  AND  BOUTS 


piece  a picture  now  in  Cologne  Museum  (No.  422).  His  style 
combines  the  traditions  of  Roger  and  Bouts,  but  he  was  probably 
a pupil  of  the  latter.  The  picture  in  question  ^ is  a four-panel 
altar-piece  of  Brabantine  type.  The  four  inside  panels  are  filled 
with  incidents  away  off  into  the  far  distance,  and  the  horizon  is  made 
high  to  accommodate  as  many  as  possible.  The  foregrounds  of  the 
two  panels  on  the  left  contain  Christ’s  Charge  to  Peter  and  the 
Visitation,  the  latter  a repetition  of  the  type  popularized  by  Roger. 
The  other  two  relate  the  prosperity  and  the  trials  of  Job.  There 
are  portraits  of  the  donor  and  his  wife  with  their  arms,  but  they 
do  not  seem  to  have  been  identified.  The  whole  work  is  not,  in  fact, 
a picture  at  all,  but  an  assemblage  of  illustrations,  a monument 
of  industrious  ingenuity,  not  of  artistic  creation.  A portion 
depicts  the  nude  and  suffering  Job  giving  money  to  one  of  three 
trumpeters,  apparently  to  induce  them  to  stop  their  noise  and  go 
away.  Trumpeters  of  like  type  and  with  cheeks  no  less  inflated 
take  part  in  another  ceremonial  depicted  by  the  same  painter 
on  a panel  in  the  Amsterdam  Gallery  (No.  342).  There,  Solomon 
is  seen  sacrificing  a rather  pathetic  goat  before  a somewhat  comic 
idol.^  The  crowded  figures  are  large  in  proportion  to  the  panel ; 
a reduction  has  consequently  to  be  made  in  the  scale  of  the  archi- 
tecture to  fit  everything  in.  The  street  scene  in  the  background 
gives  a pleasant  glimpse  into  a picturesque  mediaeval  town.  By 
the  same  artist  are  a pair  of  wings,  with  Solomon  again,  which  were 
in  the  Cardon  Collection  (Brussels).®  The  four  kneeling  donors 
in  the  foregrounds  of  them  hold  crosses  in  sign  that  they  were 
all  dead.  This  was  doubtless  their  memorial.  Two  miracles 
of  a Saint  in  the  Dublin  Gallery,  an  altar-piece  in  the  Cologne 
Museum,  and  the  wings  of  a small  carved  altar-piece  in  the  Radowitz 
Collection  at  Madrid,  are  all  assigned  to  this  painter — I forget  by 
whom.  He  was  not  an  important  artist,  neither  was  he  a mere 
imitator.  His  designs  are  his  own.  His  personality  is  seen  through 
his  work  and  is  not  weak.  His  pictures  are  decoratively  coloured, 
and  their  details  often  entertaining. 

1 Purchased  at  the  Fechenbach  sale,  1889,  reproduced  in  the  sale  catalogue.  See 
Zeits.  f.  christl.  Kunst,  May  1889,  p.  50. 

2 In  1787  it  is  said  to  have  belonged  to  W.  A.  Kien  van  Sitters. 

® Bruges  Ex.  (1902),  No.  110. 


MINOR  PAINTERS 


261 


Here  is  perhaps  as  good  a point  as  any  for  mention  of  another 
inferior  artist  who  worked  about  this  time  either  at  Louvain 
or  Brussels,  and  is  known  to  us  by  two  pietures,  a Last  Supper 
in  the  Seminary  at  Bruges  and  a portrait  which  was  in  the  Gold- 
schmidt Collection/  In  the  former  we  may  note  initials  in  the 
window-glass.  The  painter  evidently  came  like  Albert  out  of 
the  school  of  Dirk  Bouts,  and  borrowed  from  that  master  many 
a hint  for  his  Passover  wing.  But  it  was  not  from  him  that  he 
took  the  round  table  for  the  Last  Supper,  a feature  commoner 
in  French  than  in  Netherlandish  pictures.  He  was  rather  a quaint 
artist,  painting  features  on  too  large  a scale  for  heads  and  heads 
too  big  for  bodies.  He  makes  his  people  very  narrow  across  the 
shoulders,  but  that  is  lucky  for  them  seeing  how  they  had  to  crowd 
themselves  so  very  closely  together  to  get  into  the  picture  at  all. 
He  painted  his  furniture  and  other  accessories  with  taste,  under- 
standing, and  enjoyment ; even  his  queer  little  people  are  attractive 
in  their  dwarfish  fashion,  and  possess  a good  deal  of  character. 
The  aged,  sunken-cheeked  ecclesiastic  who  looks  forth  with  rever- 
ence from  the  Goldschmidt  panel  might  have  come  straight  out 
of  the  Last  Supper.  He  is  a dear  old  thing,  never  very  effective 
as  a man  of  the  world,  but  quite  at  home  in  a cloister.  How  he 
ever  came  to  think  of  having  his  portrait  painted  is  a mystery  ; 
as  it  evidently  formed  part  of  a diptych  it  may  have  been  done  in 
his  memory,  and  set  up  in  a church  by  his  relatives.  It  is  strange 
how  attractive  a second-rate  artist’s  pictures  may  be  if  he  is  a 
genuine  person  painting  what  is  in  him,  and  not  merely  what  he 
thinks  to  be  in  someone  else.  I have  noted  above  that  the  garden 
seen  through  the  window  of  the  Supper  Chamber  is  the  same  as 
that  behind  the  Ashburnham  Annunciation  now  in  New  York 
Museum.  Both  pictures  must  have  been  painted  in  the  same  place, 
which  may  have  been  either  Brussels  or  Louvain. 

While  Albert  Bouts  was  working  at  Louvain,  Colin  de  Coter 
must  have  been  the  leading  artist  at  Brussels  ; he  was  certainly 
the  best  there  of  his  day  whose  works  are  extant.  His  merit 
is  of  recent  recognition,  and  he  does  not  yet  occupy  in  general 
esteem  the  position  which  is  his  due.  It  is  only  by  guessing  that 
we  fix  Colin  de  Coter’s  birth  at  about  1460,  He  may  have  been 

1 Bruges  Ex.  (1902),  Nos.  42  and  381. 


262  BRABANT  PAINTERS  AFTER  ROGER  AND  BOUTS 


bom  earlier,  but  not  early  enough  to  have  been  Roger’s  pupil. 
His  style  was  strongly  influenced  by  Roger,  but  the  pictures  he 
chiefly  admired  were  Campin’ s.  Whoever  taught  him  was  merely 
a medium  for  conveying  the  ideas  and  technique  of  those  masters 
to  his  head  and  hand.  It  can  scarcely  be  doubted  that  he  was 
the  Colin  of  Brussels  who  in  1493  had  his  name  inscribed  as  a 
master-painter  in  the  books  of  the  Antwerp  Guild  of  St.  Luke. 
He  must  already  have  been  accomplished  in  painting  on  a large 
scale,  or  he  would  not  straightway  have  been  charged  by  the 
Guild  to  paint  the  figures  of  angels  on  the  vault  of  their  chapel 
of  St.  Luke  in  the  Cathedral.  He  may  have  taken  up  his  master- 
ship at  Antwerp  in  order  to  be  eligible  to  carry  out  that  commission. 
It  will  be  remembered  that  angels  in  a like  position  in  the  vault 
of  St.  Peter’s  at  Louvain  were  ascribed  to  Roger  by  Hulin  ; they 
no  longer  exist.  The  Antwerp  angels  would  have  been  of  similar 
character.  Though  Colin  had  this  connexion  with  Antwerp 
and  may  have  spent  much  time  in  that  new  art-centre,  he  remained 
essentially  a Brabanter,  and  Brussels  was  the  true  home  of  his 
courtly  art. 

The  central  panel  and  sinister  wing  of  a triptych  by  him  are 
in  the  Louvre.  There  is  no  doubt  about  their  authorship,  for  the 
wing  is  signed  “ Colin  de  Coter  painted  me  at  Brussels  in  Brabant.” 
The  chief  subject  is  a Trinity  with  four  angels,  an  obvious  copy 
of  some  lost  original  by  Campin.  Another  copy  of  it  is  in  Louvain 
Museum.  The  central  group  made  its  first  appearance  upon  one 
of  Campin’s  panels  now  at  Frankfurt.  We  have  already  noted 
how  Hugo  van  der  Goes  imitated  it,  while  the  free  repetition  in 
a church  at  Bergamo  is  mentioned  by  Friedlander  as  approximating 
in  style  to  Colin.  There  is  likewise  a late  copy  in  the  Brussels 
Gallery.  According  to  Cohen  the  lost  wing  may  have  contained 
a portrait  of  Mme  d’Averoult  before  Christ,  but  that  would  not 
be  a suitable  pendant  to  the  three  weeping  Maries  on  the  wing 
that  survives.  There  are  strong  reasons  for  thinking  that  John 
the  Evangelist  and  the  Mater  Dolorosa  were  on  the  missing  panel. 
Even  the  three  women  may  not  have  been  an  original  composition 
of  Colin’s,  but  the  grace  of  the  finely  clothed  Magdalen  in  front 
was  evidently  his  own.  He  was  so  pleased  with  her  and  with 
the  (assumed)  corresponding  figure  of  St.  John  that  he  repeated 


COLIN  DE  COTER 


263 


them  alone  on  another  pair  of  wings,  one  formerly  in  the  Kaufmann, 
the  other  in  the  Widener  Collections.  They  are  notable  life-size 
figures  ; the  Magdalen  with  her  yet  rieher  attire  and  her  personal 
charms  can  never  have  failed  to  arrest  attention.  Pictures  by 
Netherlands  painters,  in  which  the  figures  are  on  a large  scale, 
generally  look  like  small  pictures  seen  through  a magnifying- 
glass.  But  Colin,  like  Hugo  van  der  Goes,  delighted  in  size  for 
its  own  sake.  He  imagined  on  the  larger  scale.  He  painted 
monumentally  and  produced  withal  a fine  effect  of  colour.  The 
Kaufmann  Magdalen  is  one  of  the  earliest  appearances  in  that 
character  of  the  elaborate  Antwerp  courtesan,  outcome  of  a rich 
plutocracy.  During  the  next  half-century  she  embraces  the 
Cross  in  most  Crucifixions,  and  brings  with  her  into  pictures  mas- 
querading as  religious  an  incongruous  and  even  shocking  element. 
Here  she  is  merely  a beautiful  woman,  delicately  distressful  in 
her  gorgeous  brocades.  With  the  change  of  the  art-centre  from 
Bruges  to  Antwerp  the  mediaeval  religious  spirit  passed  out  of 
Netherlandish  art.  It  had  never  been  very  strong,  not  even  with 
Memling,  but  typical  fifteenth  century  artists  took  the  mediaeval 
ideal  for  granted,  though  without  fervour.  The  old  religious 
forms  became  a mere  convention,  like  the  shapes  of  the  letters 
of  the  alphabet,  for  artists  impregnated  with  Renaissance  feeling. 
It  was  not  so  with  Colin.  The  old  ideal  meant  something  to  him, 
and  he  vibrated,  if  faintly,  to  the  thrill  which  had  convulsed  the 
frames  of  a Bernard  or  a Francis. 

It  must  be  admitted  that  little  emotion  is  visible  in  Colin’s 
Virgin  with  St.  Luke  (Louvre)  from  the  Church  of  Vieure  (Allier), 
a picture  authenticated  with  an  inscription  similar  to  that  recorded 
above.  It  is  badly  composed,  with  evident  reminiscences  of 
Roger’s  popular  composition,  but  with  forms  and  details  borrowed 
from  Campin.  The  Virgin  sits  on  a bench  in  front  of  a fireplace, 
like  Campin’s  Barbara.  St.  Joseph  is  employed  making  mouse- 
traps, as  with  Campin,  and  the  room-interior  likewise  resembles 
his.  If  St.  Luke  is  a portrait  of  Colin  himself  he  must  have  been 
over  fifty  years  of  age  when  he  painted  it.  Antiquarians  will  be 
interested  to  note  the  artist’s  equipment : his  colours  in  shells,  his 
tray  for  brushes,  his  small  palette,  his  easel,  and  the  panel  framed 
in  advance.  The  extraordinary  oblong-faced  Child  reappears  in 


264  BRABANT  PAINTERS  AFTER  ROGER  AND  BOUTS 


the  picture  of  an  enthroned  Virgin  which  was  sold  by  Messrs. 
Colnaghi  to  an  American  purchaser.  In  this  also  the  figures  are 
approximately  life-size,  and  the  scene  is  the  interior  of  a room  so 
small  that  bed,  side-table,  and  chair  almost  fill  it,  so  that  there 
is  only  just  space  beneath  the  joists  overhead  for  the  crown-holding 
angels  to  flutter  in.  Their  facial  types  are  reminiscent  of  Campin, 
but  the  Virgin’s  of  Roger. 

A pair  of  wings  in  a collection  at  Tourcoing  console  us  for  the 
absence  of  portraits  by  him.  Philip  the  Fair  and  a number  of 
men  kneel  on  one  side,  Jeanne  la  Folle  and  women  on  the  other. 
The  women  are  rather  attractive  in  their  white  head-dresses,  but 
the  men,  with  one  or  two  exceptions,  are  a forbidding  lot  and  already 
wear  that  aspect  of  wooden  bigotry  characteristic  of  the  sixteenth 
century  portrait-groups  of  religious  fraternities  in  the  Catholic 
Netherlands,  so  many  of  which  have  come  down  to  us.  In  the 
Bruges  Exhibition  of  1902  a number  of  them  were  hung  together 
in  some  rooms  on  the  upper  storey,  where  visitors  seldom  lingered. 
I well  remember  being  taken  up  there  one  day  by  an  eminent 
art-historian,  now  no  more,  who  said  to  me : “ I love  to  sit  quietly 
in  this  room,  all  by  myself,  and  to  look  at  these  likenesses  of  the 
old  orthodox  lot  who  had  themselves  thus  painted.  Bigotry 
stands  out  upon  every  face,  and  stupidity  too.  Could  you  imagine 
a more  wooden-headed  lot  ? As  historical  documents  these  pic- 
tures are  priceless,  but  I wonder  how  the  Churchmen  who  control 
this  exhibition  dare  to  exhibit  them  all  together  ! ” 

If,  as  the  ages  of  the  princely  pair  denote,  these  wings  were 
painted  shortly  before  1500,  the  striking  panel  ^ we  have  next  to 
consider  must  have  been  painted  in  the  early  years  of  the  sixteenth 
century.  It  shows  the  artist  at  least  finding  himself  and  no  longer 
dependent  upon  Campin  for  ideas.  It  is  a wing  of  what  must  have 
been  a very  fine  triptych.  Two  beautiful  figures  stand  side  by 
side,  simple  full-lengths — St.  Michael  and  St.  Agnes — with  just 
a glimpse  of  landscape  between  them  and  the  decorative  silhouettes 
of  some  trees  against  a clear  sky.  The  whole  is  admirable  decora- 
tion, with  the  vertical  lines  of  rich  and  heavy  draperies  insisted 
on,  and  faces  and  hands  drawn  and  modelled  with  grace  and  dex- 
terity. The  composition  of  the  figures,  though  apparently  simple, 
1 It  passed  through  the  hands  of  the  Spanish  Gallery,  London. 


PLATE  XII 


1.  ALBERT  BOUTS.  WORCESTER,  MASS, 
p.  258. 


2.  THE  SOLOMON  PIASTER.  AMSTERDAM, 
p.  2(H). 


3.  COLIN  UE  COTER.  MESSRS.  COI-NAOIII. 
p.  264. 


4.  COLIN  DE  COTER.  THE  SPANISH 
GAH.ERY.— p.  2(34. 

\To  lace  paije  264 


COLIN  DE  COTER 


265 


is  highly  accomplished.  St.  Michael’s  morse,  approximately  square 
in  shape — four  semicircular  lobes  with  a triangle  between  each 
pair — ^is  a strange  survival  of  a form  of  jewelled  brooch  which  was 
fashionable  among  the  upper  classes  in  Merovingian  days,  especially 
along  the  Rhine.  An  equally  noble  St.  Michael  is  he  who  weighs 
the  souls  in  a great  Last  Judgment  picture,  sawn  into  six  fragments, 
probably  at  Cologne  at  some  unrecorded  date,  and  scattered  among 
several  purchasers.  The  St.  Michael  is  in  the  Virnich  Collection  at 
Bonn.  St.  Peter  at  the  Gate  of  Heaven  (below  on  the  left)  and 
St.  John  Baptist  with  six  Apostles  in  the  clouds  (above  on  the  right) 
are  in  the  Munich  Gallery,  while  the  Hell  fragment  has  been 
identified  by  Cohen  in  another  private  collection  on  the  Rhine.' 
The  complete  picture  was  some  ten  feet  high  and  may  have  been 
the  painter’s  masterpiece.  Probably  all  the  fragments  exist  and 
may  some  day  be  put  together  again.  Let  us  hope  so.  Colin 
would  not  thus  have  painted  the  subject  if  he  had  not  known 
Roger’s  Beaune  altar-piece.  The  St.  Michael  is  closely  imitated 
from  that,  but  not  copied.  The  lines  of  the  drapery  are  simpli- 
fied ; the  angel’s  type  is  Colin’s  own.  It  is  permissible  to  wonder 
why  the  “ saved  ” man  in  front  should  look  so  angrily  at  St.  Peter, 
who  is  about  to  admit  him  to  Paradise.  The  facial  expression  of 
men  was  not  Colin’s  strong  point,  but  the  sweet  lady  behind  makes 
amends. 

If  the  crowded  Descent  from  the  Cross  at  Stuttgart  is  really 
by  Colin,  it  must  be  the  work  of  his  last  days,  and  consoles  us  for 
the  loss  of  other  pictures  of  that  period.  Another  version  was  in 
the  Museo  Civico  at  Messina.  Only  the  upper  part  of  Christ’s 
figure  and  the  heads  of  His  supporters  are  visible,  and  they  are 
large  and  coarsely  painted.  The  composition  was  perhaps  generally 
suggested  by  that  small  crowded  upright  type  of  Descent  so  fre- 
quently repeated  by  Roger’s  followers.  A triptych,  also  of  the 
Descent,  in  the  Brussels  Gallery  (No.  580),  is  likewise  eited  by 
Friedlander  as  possibly  a later  work  of  Colin’s,  or  may  more  merci- 
fully be  attributed  to  a follower — characteristic  Brabantine  work, 
he  says,  of  about  1515.  We  will  not  quit  Colin  on  so  depressed  a 
level,  for  there  still  remains  a notable  Madonna  which  may  be 
attributed  to  him.  It  belongs  to  Messrs.  Colnaghi,  to  whom  I 

' Jahrbuch  Pr.  Kss.,  1910. 


266  BRABANT  PAINTERS  AFTER  ROGER  AND  BOUTS 


am  indebted  for  an  excellent  photograph  of  it.  The  Virgin  sits 
in  a stone  niche  with  her  feet  on  a corbelled  out  pedestal — a sculp- 
turesque figure  as  was  intended.  The  frill  round  the  edge  of  her 
white  head-cloth  is  still  a feature  descending  from  Campin,  and  the 
Child’s  face,  though  not  so  oblong  as  of  yore,  is  of  the  old  type. 
The  Virgin’s  drapery  with  its  large  sweep  goes  back  to  the  Van 
Eycks,  yet  the  picture  is  not  an  imitation,  but  a creation  and  one 
of  the  latest  of  the  great  school.  We  shall  find  among  the  early 
works  of  Massys  another  example  to  put  with  it,  and  that  is  all. 
The  old  ideal  was  wearing  out.  The  world  was  desiring  something 
fresh.  Colin  de  Coter  was  not  the  man  to  supply  it.  He  lived 
too  late  for  high  fame.  His  pictures  must  have  become  old- 
fashioned  before  they  had  time  to  grow  venerable.  The  paintings 
of  the  great  originators  never  wholly  lost  prestige.  Van  Eyck  was 
always  a revered  name  even  in  the  seventeenth  century.  But 
Colin  was  bound  to  be  soon  forgotten.  Not  one  of  his  great  altar- 
pieces — and  he  must  have  painted  several — has  come  down  to  us 
intact.  We  have  only  odd  panels,  separated  wings,  and  detached 
fragments  to  judge  him  by.  Even  this  last  Madonna  appears 
to  have  been  an  outside  panel  of  a triptych.  Enough,  however, 
remains  to  show  that  Colin  was  a considerable  personage,  of  large 
vision,  some  imagination,  and  a sense  of  style  and  dignity,  conserva- 
tive, reserved,  unadventurous,  but  a sound  craftsman  and  a serious 
artist.  He  fills  an  honourable  though  not  prominent  niche  in 
the  Temple  of  Fame. 

We  must  deal  summarily  with  the  pupils  and  followers  of  Colin  ; 
it  passes  the  wit  of  the  present  writer  to  make  them  interesting. 
In  the  church  of  St.  Rombaut  at  Malines  are  a pair  of  panels  with 
incidents  in  the  life  of  the  saint.  Friedlander  says  that  one  of 
them  was  painted  by  the  Master  of  the  Magdalen  Legend,  the  other 
by  the  Master  of  the  Orsoy  Altar-piece — ^nicknames  of  his  invention — 
and  that  the  two  painters  were  both  Brussels  artists,  influenced 
by  or  pupils  of  Colin,  unless  one  of  them  was  the  pupil  of  the 
other.  The  Orsoy  Altar-piece,'  a work  of  the  early  sixteenth  century, 
is  in  a chureh  at  that  place  near  Wesel.  To  the  same  workshop 
he  ascribes  a Nativity  and  Circumcision  in  the  Brussels  Gallery 
(No.  541),  both  incidents  included  on  one  panel.  The  Nativity 

' Diisseldorf  Ex.  (1904),  No.  91  ; pi.  24  in  the  illustrated  Memorial  Volume. 


THE  AFFLIGHEM  MASTER 


267 


and  kneeling  portrait  of  the  donor  are  reminiscent  of  Van  der  Goes  ; 
the  Circumcision  already  foreshadows  the  style  which  we  associate 
with  Antwerp  and  particularly  with  that  group  of  artists  who  used 
to  be  gathered  together  under  the  false  name  of  Bles.  Luckily 
for  the  donor,  he  had  his  head  painted  in  by  another  and  more 
gifted  artist,  who  could  fashion  a workmanlike  portrait.  The 
rest  of  the  picture  is  a mere  school  product,  the  single  (and  un- 
fortunate) note  of  originality  being  in  the  three  figures  hoisted 
aloft  on  to  a rickety  kind  of  churchwarden-gothic  scaffold, 
apparently  attached  only  to  the  picture-frame ! Each  figure 
stands  on  a small  circular  pedestal.  The  angel  in  the  centre  has 
the  unfair  advantage  of  wings  to  help  him  keep  his  balance,  but 
the  neatly  dressed  lady  and  gentleman  beside  him  will  surely 
soon  become  giddy  and  fall  headlong  on  to  the  group  below. 

The  Virgin  and  St.  John  beside  the  Crucifix  in  a picture  at 
Oporto  stand  likewise  upon  pedestals,  though  far  less  exalted  ones, 
forming  part  of  the  stone  margin  of  a well-head  of  the  Water  of 
Life.'  The  Royalties  of  Portugal  and  their  suite  kneel  around. 
As  King  Manuel  was  married  in  1519  and  died  in  1521,  the  picture 
may  be  dated  about  1520.  It  is  the  work  of  a court-painter  at 
Brussels,  and  plainly  shows  the  continuing  influence  of  Colin. 

Incidents  in  the  Life  of  the  Virgin  and  the  Passion  decorate 
eight  panels  in  the  Brussels  Gallery  ; they  came  out  of  the  Abbey 
of  Afflighem.  Better  painted,  more  original,  and  more  interesting, 
are  a pair  of  wings  at  Brussels  (No.  557)  belonging  to  a Last  Judgment 
which  is  in  the  Ramlot  Collection  at  Ghent.  The  triptych  was 
painted  for  the  Town  Hall  at  Ziericzee,  and  shows  SS.  Lievin  and 
Martin  on  the  outsides  of  the  wings  ; on  the  insides  full-length 
portraits  of  Philip  the  Fair  and  Jeanne  la  Folle.  These  portraits 
(but  not  the  centre-piece)  are  attributed  to  the  Afflighem  Master, 
and  show  him  to  have  left  behind  much  of  the  Roger  tradition 
and  to  have  fallen  under  the  influence  of  Colin  de  Coter.  The 
princely  pair  are  handsomely  dressed  and  attractive  in  the  glory 
of  their  youth,  the  date  of  the  picture  being  about  1498.  The 
landscape  backgrounds  have  been  recognized  as  located  at  Brussels. 
That  behind  the  Prince  is  the  open-air  tribunal  named  the  Bur- 
gendael,  adjacent  to  the  city  walls.  Vorsterman’s  print  of  1650 

' The  picture  is  in  the  Santa  Casa  de  Misericordia,  and  was  published  by  Friedlander. 


268  BRABANT  PAINTERS  AFTER  ROGER  AND  BOUTS 


enables  the  site  to  be  identified.  Similarly,  Sandems’  print  of 
the  same  year  explains  the  tower-like  timber  building  within  the 
enclosure  behind  the  Princess.  It  is  the  summer-house,  “ la  Folie 
de  Feuillye,”  which  had  been  made  in  Spain  and  was  set  up  in 
Brussels.  No  nails  or  other  ironwork  were  used  in  it.  If  the 
lower  part  were  not  hidden  we  could  count  the  four  storeys  of  the 
structure,  and  see  that  it  stood  on  eighteen  columns  rising  out 
of  a lake.  A bridge  adorned  with  heraldic  beasts  like  those  at 
Hampton  Court  led  across  to  it,  and  there  were  steps  by  which 
bathers  could  descend  to  the  water.^  The  same  building  appears 
in  the  background  of  a design  for  tapestry  drawn  by  Bernard 
van  Orley  in  1525.  The  drawing  is  in  the  Louvre.^ 

In  a day  of  small  things  even  the  pictures  of  so  second-rate 
an  artist  as  the  painter  known  as  the  Master  of  the  Magdalen 
Legend  have  an  interest,  at  least  to  their  owners  and  to  the 
historian.  A considerable  body  of  work  has  been  identified  as  his, 
so  that  chance  may  yet  reveal  his  name.®  A triptych  by  him  in 
the  Palazzo  Durazzo-Pallavicini  at  Genoa  has  for  its  central  panel 
a half-length  Virgin  and  Child  with  St.  Francis  and  rather  a nice 
village  landscape  as  background.^  The  Child,  with  His  oblong 
cheeks,  shows  affiliation  to  Colin,  but  the  type  of  the  group  is  that 
called  “ The  Virgin  and  Child  with  a Flower,”  a type  which  Winkler 
imagines  Roger  to  have  invented.  Three  other  examples  of  it 
by  the  Magdalen  Master  are  known.®  The  first  existing  repre- 
sentative of  the  type  is  by  the  Westphalian  “ Scrolls  ” engraver, 
done  before  1470  ; several  other  repetitions  of  it  exist  dating  about 
1510-20,  the  latest  perhaps  by  Bernard  van  Orley  (Colonna  Gallery, 
Rome). 

1 See  the  illustrated  volume  on  the  Golden  Fleece  Exhibition  (Bruges,  1907,  pp.  27  ff.) 
and  Revue  de  VArt,  September  1908.  It  has  been  suggested  that  Jacob  van  Laethem 
may  have  been  the  painter,  and  the  donor  Jacques  van  Cats,  whose  family  patron  was 
St.  Martin.  The  picture  was  originally  set  up  in  the  Tribunal  of  the  Town  Hall  of  Ziericzee 
and  later  moved  into  the  church  of  St.  Lievin.  There  is  a copy  of  the  wings  in  Amsterdam 
Museimi. 

2 See  W.  A.  Baillie-Grohman,  Sport  in  Art,  p.  73. 

^ For  Friedlander’s  list,  see  Repertorium,  xxiii,  pt.  iii,  p.  12. 

* Another  group  of  the  same  three  which  was  in  the  Bourgeois  sale  (1904)  was  wrongly 
attributed  to  this  painter — ^probably  on  account  of  St.  Francis’  very  pointed  nose. 

® In  the  Mayer  van  den  Bergh  and  Wallace  Collections  and  one  sold  by  Bolder 
(a  fidl-length). 


THE  MAGDALEN  MASTER 


269 


Another  type  of  Madonna,  equally  unoriginal,  adopted  by  the 
Magdalen  Master  is  that  of  the  Virgin  with  the  Child  asleep  on  her 
arm.^  This  type  we  also  diseussed  in  connexion  with  Roger. 
These  are  not  all  the  Magdalen  Master’s  known  Madonna  pictures, 
but  may  suffice.  He  takes  his  name  from  a couple  of  panels  with 
scenes  from  the  legend  of  Mary  Magdalen,  which  were  exhibited 
at  Bruges  (1902,  Nos.  282,  283),  and  have  since  changed  hands. 
One  shows  the  lady  in  her  gay  days,  riding  out  a-hawking  on  a 
very  wooden  mount,  though  the  painter  would  be  much  disappointed 
if  he  could  hear  us  so  describe  it,  for  he  evidently  worked  hard  at 
that  and  the  other  horses.  The  faces  lack  expression  and  the  dog 
is  like  a sheep,  yet  there  is  a pleasing  sense  oi  joie  de  vivre  in  the 
whole,  and  the  background  is  charming.  The  companion  piece, 
in  which  the  converted  sinner  is  preaching  in  the  open  air,  is  per- 
functory as  far  as  the  figures  are  concerned,  but  again  redeemed 
by  its  landscape  and  the  ship  sailing  away  “ out  into  the  west.”  ^ 
The  frequency  with  which  the  saint  was  painted  at  this  period  was, 
as  I have  indicated  above,  a sign  of  the  times,  when  there  was  a 
boom  in  live  Magdalens.  This  artist  was  not  a great  portrait- 
painter,  though  a careful  one.  Some  of  his  best  heads  appear 
in  an  excellently  preserved  pair  of  wings  till  recently  in  the  posses- 
sion of  Messrs.  Dowdeswell,  the  donors  being  identifiable  as  Charles 
le  Clercq,  his  father  Philip  Annock,  and  the  wife’s  deceased  mother. 
Less  excellent  are  the  busts  of  a clergyman  and  St.  Philip  on  a 
square  wing  which  was  in  the  Willett  Collection — part  of  one  of 
those  memorial  diptychs  common  at  this  date,  especially  in  France.’ 
From  these  pictures  and  most  others  of  the  school  and  period 
the  delicacy  of  the  old  art  has  passed.  They  are  painted  heavily 
and  summarily.  The  broad  treatment  of  the  seventeenth  century 
is  foreshadowed.  The  old  enamel  surface  could  not  be  produced 
in  this  fashion,  nor  was  it  asked  for.  It  was  only  proper  to  the 
small,  jewel-like,  highly  finished  panels  of  the  Van  Eyck  school. 
Work  done  on  a larger  scale  called  for  a new  technique.  The  days 

^ Peltzer  sale  (Amsterdam,  1914),  No.  2. 

^ The  Budapest  “ Supper  at  Simon’s  ” attributed  to  this  artist  was,  in  my  opinion, 
painted  by  the  Alkmaar  Master. 

® In  Wauter’s  catalogue  of  the  Brussels  Gallery  the  du  Quesnoy  triptych  is  attributed 
to  a Master  of  the  Magdalen  Legend,  but  this  cannot  be  the  same  painter  as  Friedlander’s 
Master  of  that  name. 

19 


270  BRABANT  PAINTERS  AFTER  ROGER  AND  BOUTS 


were  passing  when  patrons  would  pay  an  artist  to  spend  five  years 
on  a single  pieture.  Quieker  handling  and  correspondingly  lower 
prices  per  square  foot  were  a sign  of  developing,  or  at  least  changing, 
technical  processes,  though  a long  Journey  had  to  be  made  between 
Van  Eyck  and  Rembrandt.  Those  interested  in  painters’  methods 
and  their  evolution  will  find  even  in  the  indifferent  work  of  six- 
teenth century  artists  a fruitful  subject  of  study.  Such  matters 
lie  outside  the  province  of  the  amateur.  If  he  cares  about 
pictures  for  the  sake  of  their  beauty,  he  will  not  linger  unduly  over 
the  work  of  the  Master  of  the  Magdalen  Legend. 

A Nativity  in  the  Brussels  Gallery  is  worth  a moment’s  notice. 
The  figures  are  treated  as  mere  decorative  patches — an  angel 
planted  in  the  midst  for  the  sake  of  a pair  of  wings  symmetrically 
raised  as  a central  pattern,  the  other  figures  balanced  to  right  and 
left  against  one  another,  posed  and  related  not  unskilfully,  but 
void  of  emotion.  A garden  with  formal  beds  shows  through  the 
Annunciation  windows  and  there  are  monograms  in  the  leaded 
glass,  but  whether  the  artist’s  or  the  donor’s  is  not  ascertained. 
Louvain  and  Brussels  pictures  of  this  date  often  display  such 
window-glass  monograms.  The  extreme  length  and  slenderness 
of  the  saintesses  on  the  outside  of  the  wings  is  noteworthy  as  a sign 
of  the  times,  and  they  may  be  compared  in  this  respect  with  some 
on  a sheet  of  drawings  which  was  in  the  Von  Lanna  Collection.^ 

A painter,  not,  I believe,  a Netherlander,  may  here  find  brief 
mention.  He  can  be  recognized  by  the  astonishing  display  he 
makes  with  hands  and  fingers.  They  stick  out  all  over  his  composi- 
tion, and  he  gives  immense  pains  to  the  finish  of  every  nail  and 
knuckle.  Such,  at  all  events,  is  the  prominent  characteristic 
of  his  Louvre  picture  of  an  Ecclesiastic  Preaching.  He  stands  on 
a skeleton  pulpit,  in  the  porch  of  a church.  What  his  small 
audience  lacks  in  numbers  it  makes  up  for  in  enthusiasm  and  good 
looks,  at  least  in  the  case  of  two  ladies  who  appear  to  have  gone 
to  a goldsmith  for  their  hats  and  to  a very  expensive  dressmaker 
for  their  clothes.  The  menfolk  closely  surrounding  them  are 
of  a respectable  antiquity,  but  there  are  some  younger  sparks 
in  the  background,  and  a rather  sly  humorist  of  a boy  peeping 
out  from  the  church  door.  The  same  horribly  sanctimonious 
1 Albertina  publication,  No.  1292. 


GOSWIN  VAN  DER  WEYDEN 


271 


preacher,  I believe,  reappears  coming  along  the  street  which  leads 
away  off  to  the  Church  of  St.  Gudule.  Were  it  not  for  the  presence 
of  this  church — is  it  really  St.  Gudule’ s ? — no  one  would  have 
called  this  a Brussels  picture,  but  looked  for  its  author  somewhere 
in  the  North  of  France,  perhaps  as  far  away  as  Amiens.  M.  de 
Mely,  having  read  upon  the  collar  of  the  kneeling  man  in  front 
the  decorative  letters  “ Apelli  Vitali,”  rushes  to  the  conclusion 
that  this  is  the  artist’s  signature,  and  that  he  was  an  Italian. 
There  is,  however,  no  Italian  element  in  his  art.  The  same  artist 
must  have  been  the  painter  of  a delightful  little  half-length  por- 
trait of  a man  which  is  at  Woerlitz.  He  is  seen  through  a round 
arched  window  with  a coat-of-arms  over  his  head.  Behind  him, 
we  look  into  the  interior  of  a church  where  a priest  is  elevating  the 
Host.  A copy  with  many  changes  in  colours  and  accessories  is 
in  the  National  Gallery  (Salting  Collection).  It  is  inscribed  on 
the  frame,  “ Lovis  XI  Roy  de  France.”  Its  painter  has  misunder- 
stood the  badly-drawn  half-opened  book  in  the  original,  and  has 
made  of  it  a nondescript  object  which  would  be  very  puzzling 
if  we  did  not  know  what  it  is  he  was  trying  to  reproduce.  The  man 
in  the  Woerlitz  picture  is  not  Louis  XI,  though  ugly  enough  for  him. 
The  painter  was  probably  a Frenchman. 

We  may  fitly  conclude  this  sketch  of  the  work  of  second-rate 
Brabantine  painters  with  a glance  at  what  has  recently  been 
revealed  about  Goswin  van  der  Weyden,  Roger’s  grandson.  His 
prineipal  aetivity  was  not  in  Brussels,  but  Antwerp.  In  fact, 
he  painted  the  first  sixteenth  century  Antwerp  picture  of  which 
the  date  is  certainly  known.  His  rediseovery  is  due  to  the  labours 
of  Professor  Hulin,  and  the  paragraphs  that  follow  are  little  more 
than  a brief  abstract  of  papers  published  by  him.  The  student 
desiring  eompleter  information  will,  of  course,  refer  to  them  in 
the  pages  of  the  Burlington  Magazine  ‘ and  the  Annual  of  the 
Prussian  Museums.^  The  chief  pictures  attributed  to  Goswin, 
though  not  of  the  first  rank,  had  long  been  recognized  as  of  some 
importance,  and  obviously  painted  by  a master  who  must  have 
enjoyed  repute  in  his  day.  The  known  outlines  of  his  life  are  as 
follows.  He  was  born  in  or  shortly  before  1465,  probably  at 
Brussels.  His  father,  Peter,  was  a member  of  the  painters’  guild, 

^ October  1912,  p.  26  ; November  1914,  p.  71.  ^ 1913,  pp.  59-88. 


272  BRABANT  PAINTERS  AFTER  ROGER  AND  BOUTS 


and  may  have  taught  Goswin  his  craft.  We  first  hear  of  the  latter 
as  living  at  Lierre  and  painting  organ-shutters  in  1492  for  the 
collegiate  church  of  St.  Gummaire.  He  seems  to  have  resided  in 
that  place  till  1498.  Then,  or  in  the  following  year,  he  moved  on 
to  Antwerp,  and  in  1503  bought  a house  close  to  Quentin  Massy s. 
Both  men  were  Brabanters,  from  Brussels  and  Louvain  respectively, 
cities  closely  related  in  artistic  matters  ; so  the  fellow-provincials 
may  well  have  been  drawn  together.  Goswin  at  once  experienced 
the  influence  of  his  great  contemporary,  and  showed  it  in  his  work. 
If  he  had  not  much  to  give  he  had  a great  deal  to  receive.  Before 
long  he  began  to  occupy  official  positions  in  the  Antwerp  Guild, 
and  his  activity  and  prosperity  may  be  measured  by  the  fact  that 
he  received  no  less  than  ten  apprentices  in  twenty  years.  From 
1499  till  his  death  soon  after  1538  he  was  much  employed  by  the 
Abbey  of  Tongerloo.  He  even  occupied  the  position  of  Keeper 
of  its  town-house  in  Antwerp,  and  acted  there  as  a sort  of  agent 
to  the  Abbots. 

The  picture  to  which  we  must  now  turn  was  painted  for  the 
said  Abbey  and  set  up  in  1505.  It  is  thus,  as  above  remarked,  the 
earliest  known  dateable  picture  painted  in  Antwerp  in  the  sixr 
teenth  century — earlier  than  the  large  dated  altar-piece  of  Quentin, 
though  of  course  not  earlier  than  some  of  the  fine  series  of  works 
by  that  great  master,  which,  though  not  dated,  may  assuredly 
be  placed  chronologically  before  those  that  are.  The  picture 
in  question  was  an  altar-piece  of  the  four-panel  type,  but  double- 
storeyed, so  that,  when  the  wings  were  opened  back  flat,  eight  equal 
panels  appeared,  four  in  a row  above  the  other  four.  Seven  of 
these  still  exist  and  were  till  a few  years  ago  in  the  possession  of 
the  Abbey.  They  then  passed  into  the  hands  of  Messrs.  F.  Muller  & 
Co.,  of  Amsterdam,  for  sale. 

Hulin  discovers  in  them  evidences  both  of  a Brussels  tradition 
and  of  the  influence  of  Quentin.  They  illustrate  in  an  entertaining 
narrative  fashion,  after  the  established  Brussels  manner,  incidents 
in  the  legend  of  St.  Dymphna,  a local  saint  of  supposed  Irish 
extraction.  The  text  of  her  legend  had  been  published  at  Antwerp 
by  the  printer  Back  in  1496,  and  may  have  guided  the  artist  in 
his  selection  of  subjects  and  their  design.  Hulin  points  out  the 
simple  naturalism  of  the  landscapes,  devoid  of  over-abrupt  rocks 


GOSWIN  VAN  DER  WEYDEN 


273 


and  wide  expanses  of  distance.  Not  in  them  shall  we  find  much 
evidence  of  Antwerp  influences.  Some  of  the  figure-types  recur 
in  the  Mannerists’  pictures  to  be  considered  below,  and  here  and 
there  a leg  is  pushed  forward  or  a knee  bent  with  a little  unnecessary 
prominence.  There  is  also  some  tendency  to  multiply  gestures 
and  the  by-play  of  subordinate  characters,  but  this  is  not  Manner- 
ism. That  consisted  in  a particular  spirit  of  restlessness  and  strain, 
which  shall  be  more  completely  defined  and  discussed  hereafter. 
It  is  enough  here  to  note  that  Goswin  cannot  have  been  the  founder 
of  that  style. 

The  various  panels  of  the  Dymphna  altar-piece  can  never 
have  formed  a decorative  whole.  The  mere  equality  and  rect- 
angular combination  of  them  show  how  completely  the  decora- 
tive Gothic  sense  had  departed.  Gothic  altar-pieces  of  the  central 
period  were  designed  under  the  traditions  of  architecture.  As 
the  fifteenth  century  passed  we  can  observe  the  gradual  evapora- 
tion of  the  architectural  tradition.  In  the  four-panel  altar-pieces— 
still  more  emphatically  in  this  eight-panel  example — no  trace  of 
architectural  structure  survives.  The  panels  are  like  so  many  in- 
dependent pictures  hung  as  close  together  as  possible  on  the  walls 
of  a picture  gallery.  Their  dismemberment  in  the  eighteenth 
century  must  have  been  more  beneficial  than  harmful  to  their  effect. 
When  they  were  painted  the  habit  of  book-illustration  had  become 
fixed.  The  public  were  accustomed  to  the  idea  of  illustrating  a 
printed  tale  or  poem  with  prints.  The  fine  edition  of  Olivier 
de  la  Marche’s  Chevalier  dMibere,  published  at  Schiedam  between 
1498  and  1500,  marked  an  important  stage  in  the  development 
of  the  illustrated  book.  Goswin’s  panels  are  like  so  many  book- 
illustrations.  They  contain  narrative  pictures  as  much  intended 
to  relate  the  story  as  were,  for  instance,  the  couple  of  dozen  wood- 
cuts  wherewith  the  Schiedam  printer  accompanied  the  text  of 
the  Life  of  Liedwy,  which  he  issued  in  1498.  Illustration  is  a 
legitimate  form  of  art,  but  not  the  highest  form.  Composition 
must  be  subordinate  to  lucidity.  The  old  religious  round  of  subjects 
had  in  a sense  been  illustrations,  but  by  frequent  repetition  the  need 
for  lucidity  had  passed,  and  in  the  best  days  of  mediaeval  Christian 
art  pictures  were  primarily  decorative.  Every  spectator  knew  the 
meaning  of  the  subjects,  and  did  not  need  a lucid  exposition 


274  BRABANT  PAINTERS  AFTER  ROGER  AND  BOUTS 


of  them.  It  was  enough  if  the  composition  served  as  a reminder. 
But  such  pictures  as  these  of  the  Dymphna  legend  must  needs 
tell  their  tale.  That  was  the  painter’s  primary  business,  and  the 
paintings  must  be  judged  accordingly.  The  nearer  they  come 
to  actual  depiction  of  incidents  in  everyday  life  the  better  are  they. 
That  of  the  two  spies  bribing  the  innkeeper’s  wife  really  enter- 
tains us,  because  it  shows  the  people  of  the  artist’s  own  day  amid 
their  ordinary  surroundings.  Peter  Bruegel  would  have  painted 
the  subject  much  better,  but  it  is  a subject  he  might  have  chosen. 
The  almost  exactly  contemporary  Seven  Works  of  Mercy  by  the 
Master  of  Alkmaar  are  of  this  kind  and  approximately  on  Gos win’s 
level.  Both  artists  were  unconsciously  feeling  their  way  into 
the  new  world  of  everyday,  in  which  painters  were  presently  to 
find  as  much  to  kindle  their  imaginations  as  their  predecessors 
had  found  among  the  dwellers  in  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven. 

The  Dymphna  panels  are  attributed  to  Goswin  because  they 
were  painted  at  a time  when  he  is  known  to  have  been  employed 
by  Tongerloo  Abbey,  and  because  we  know  of  no  other  painter 
to  whom  they  can  be  attributed  with  any  like  probability  ; but 
there  exists  a picture  painted  between  the  years  1511  and  1515 
which  records  prove  to  have  been  his  handiwork.  It  is  a Madonna 
with  donors  now  in  the  Berlin  Museum  (No.  526).  Its  purpose 
was  to  commemorate  a donation  of  lands  at  Calmpthout,  made 
as  far  back  as  the  thirteenth  century.  A first  glance  at  the  picture 
is  disturbing,  for  to  whatever  extent  the  actual  technique  may 
suggest  an  early  sixteenth  century  hand — and  it  did,  in  fact,  strike 
Hulin  as  the  work  of  a contemporary  of  Quentin  Massys  before 
he  knew  anything  whatever  about  the  history  of  the  picture — 
the  design  is  obviously  neither  of  that  date  nor  of  the  thirteenth 
century,  but  of  about  the  year  1450.  In  the  centre  we  have  a 
full-length  Virgin  of  so  exactly  Roger  van  der  Weyden’s  type  that 
he  must  surely  have  designed  it.  A brocaded  dorser  (which  Hulin 
identifies  as  borrowed  from  Quentin)  hangs  behind  her.  Donors 
kneel  on  either  hand.  A knight  on  our  left  with  a tabard  over 
his  armour  is  very  like  Sir  Philip  Hinckert  in  the  Roger-school 
picture  once  in  the  Crews  Collection  ; on  the  right  is  a lady  closely 
corresponding  in  costume,  pose,  and  feeling  to  the  donoress  on 
the  Roger-school  wings  of  1451  described  in  a previous  chapter. 


PLATE  XIII 


1.  A BRABANT  .MASTER.  COLL.  GOLDSCHMIDT, 
p.  2C1. 


2.  THE  AEFLIGIIEM  MASTER.  JEANNE 
LA  FOLLE  (1498).  BRUSSELS.— p.  267. 


3.  THE  MAGDALEN  .MASTER.  .MESSRS. 
DOWDESWELL.— p.  269. 


4.  GOSWIN  VAN  DER  WEYDEN.  BLAKESLEE 
SALE.— p.  275. 


[To  /ace  page  274. 


GOSWIN  VAN  DER  WEYDEN 


275 


A votive  picture  of  like  design  and  mid-fifteenth  century  date  is 
in  the  Kunstliefde  Museum  at  Utrecht/  the  donor  there  being  one 
Rues  van  Haemstede.  The  Berlin  picture,  therefore,  is  either  a 
copy  of  one  painted  by  Roger,  or  it  was  designed  by  Goswin  strictly 
on  the  lines  of  a similar  work  by  his  grandfather.  It  is  unfor- 
tunate that  the  single  documentarily  authenticated  work  by  Goswin 
should  be  of  this  character.  The  only  contemporary  features  are 
the  bits  of  landscape,  the  foreground  trees,  and  the  additional 
donor  on  the  left  with  his  upturned  face  and  enthusiastic  expres- 
sion, in  marked  contrast  to  the  stolidity  of  the  donors  of  the  older 
school ; these  features,  however,  sufficed  to  enable  Hulin  to  recog- 
nize several  other  works  as  by  the  same  artist,  but  the  promised 
proofs  are  not  yet  forthcoming.^ 

A third  picture  which  groups  well  enough  with  these  two 
was  sold  in  New  York  at  the  Blakeslee  sale  in  1915  (No.  70).  It 
depicts  the  kindred  of  Christ,’  and  does  so  with  considerable 
originality  and  charm.  The  children  are  playing  about  the  knees 
of  the  Virgin  and  St.  Joseph,  who  sit  in  a very  plain  room  with  a 
landscape  of  Goswin’s  style  visible  through  a window.  The  rather 
peculiar  sleeve  of  the  Virgin’s  dress  was  designed  by  the  same 
costumier  as  the  sleeve  worn  by  one  of  the  girls  in  a roundel  of  the 
Prodigal  Son  at  Basle — a picture  placed  by  Friedlander  in  his 
B group  of  Antwerp  Mannerists — and  in  a picture  by  Bernard  van 
Orley.  At  a time  when  feminine  fashions  were  quickly  changing, 
this  identity  indicates  for  the  pictures  a common  date,  probably 
before  1510. 

Other  pictures  attributed  to  Goswin  are  an  Adoration  of  the 
Magi  in  Buckingham  Palace,  a half-length  Virgin  at  Hampton 
Court,  a triptych  which  passed  through  the  De  Somzee  and  Hoe 
sales  (Phot.  Hanfstangl,  No.  1089),  a Martyrdom  of  St.  George 
in  the  Kestner  Museum  at  Hanover,*  a St.  Catherine  triptych 
in  the  Cook  Collection  at  Richmond,  and  the  Colibrant  triptych 

1 Reproduced  in  Martin’s  Altholldnd.  Malerei,  Leipzig,  1912. 

^ They  were  to  be  published  in  a second  article  in  the  Prussian  Museums  Annual, 
but  the  War  no  doubt  prevented  its  appearance. 

’ I have  to  thank  Mr.  T.  E.  Kirby  of  the  American  Art  Association  for  a photograph 
of  this  picture. 

* Monatshefte  f.  K.,  vi,  pt.  12.  The  reasons  for  the  attribution  of  this  picture  to 
Goswin  are  by  me  undiscoverable. 


276  BRABANT  PAINTERS  AFTER  ROGER  AND  BOUTS 


at  Lierre.  These  attributions  are  highly  tentative,  and  we  remain 
in  the  dark  as  to  the  arguments  by  which  Hulin  hoped  to  attach 
to  our  painter  the  very  important  Colibrant  triptych.  His  attribu- 
tion of  the  Cook  triptych  was,  however,  definite.  The  Colibrant 
triptych  of  the  Marriage  of  the  Virgin,  with  the  Annunciation 
and  Presentation  on  the  wings,  was  in  the  church  at  Lierre  before 
the  War.  That  was  a very  considerable  work  of  no  little  merit, 
and  its  date  is  approximately  1515-17.  The  figures  are  balanced 
and  dignified ; costume  is  subordinated  to  humanity,  not  the 
wearer  to  the  costume ; the  spacious  architectural  background 
is  the  actual  interior  of  Lierre  Church,  containing  the  sumptuous 
stone  screen  which  was  its  glory  till  the  War  overwhelmed  it  in 
common  ruin  with  the  church  {Burlington  Mag.,  Nov.  1914,  p.  655.) 

Though  most  of  these  pictures  are  not  united  by  any  strong 
common  bond  of  style,  we  may  yet  be  willing  to  admit  them  as 
the  possible  work  of  a single  artist,  who  down  to  the  year  1517 
remained  free  of  Antwerp  mannerism  ; but  the  St.  Catherine  in 
the  Cook  Collection  and  the  Hoe  triptych  stand  in  a category 
by  themselves.  We  cannot  insert  them  at  any  point  among  the 
rest,  so  that  if  they  are  the  work  of  Goswin  they  must  have  been 
painted  after  1517.  In  both,  but  especially  in  the  St.  Catherine, 
Mannerism  is  prominent.  The  saint,  indeed,  a full-length  figure, 
shows  some  restraint  of  tradition.  Her  costume  is  of  fifteenth 
century  fashion,  and  so  is  her  facial  type,  but  every  other  face  and 
figure  in  the  picture  looks  all  the  more  modern  by  contrast.  They 
are  of  new  types.  Many  of  the  heads  are  bald  or  have  a curious 
look  of  baldness,  though  enveloped  in  cap  or  turban.  There  is 
a man  with  a long  swallow-tail  beard  of  a kind  common  in  pictures 
by  the  Mannerists.  Architecture  tends  to  be  elaborate  and  fussy. 
Subordinate  characters  are  all  occupied — ^talking,  arguing,  or  reading 
together — and  the  landscapes  are  no  longer  simple,  I find  it 
far  from  easy  to  accept  these  pictures  as  by  the  same  hand  as 
the  rest,  but  Hulin  seems  to  be  assured  of  the  identity  ; we  must 
await  the  full  publication  of  his  researches  for  satisfaction  of  our 
doubts.  In  any  case,  if  Goswin  did  become  affected  by  Mannerism 
it  was  a late  phase  with  him  and  one  which  he  owed  to  surrounding 
influences,  not  to  his  own  spontaneous  invention. 


CHAPTER  XX 


GERARD  DAVID 

Gerard,  son  of  John,  son  of  David  of  Oudewater  (as  his  redis- 
coverer Weale  called  him),  generally  named  Gerard  David  for 
short,  was  a Dutchman.  As  an  artist,  however,  he  is  chief  repre- 
sentative, not  of  the  Dutch,  but  of  the  Bruges  School  after  the 
death  of  Memling.  He  was  born  at  Oudewater,  near  Gouda,  in 
Holland,  some  time  before  1460,  and  came  to  Bruges  as  a formed 
artist  in  1483.  On  the  following  January  14th  he  was  admitted 
a master-painter  in  the  Bruges  Guild.  It  can  scarcely  be  doubted 
that  he  learned  his  art  in  Haarlem  in  the  studio  of  Ouwater,  and 
that  Geertgen  was  his  fellow-pupil.^  There  is  by  him  in  the  Dublin 
Gallery,  painted  at  the  culmination  of  his  career,  a figure  of  Christ 
(half  of  ,a  composition  of  Christ  taking  leave  of  His  Mother), 
which  is  copied  from  the  Christ  in  Ouwater’s  Raising  of  Lazarus, 
a picture  probably  painted  about  1470  or  even  a little  later,  the 
very  time  when  David  would  have  been  Ouwater’s  pupil.  As 
for  David’s  relation  to  his  fellow-pupil  and  contemporary,  Geertgen, 
a picture  which  was  in  Sir  Charles  Turner’s  collection  = may  throw 
some  light  on  that.  It  used  to  be  attributed  to  Geertgen  himself 
or  called  a copy  after  a lost  picture  by  him.  The  subject  is  con- 
nected with  the  Legend  of  St.  Dominic  and  his  distribution  of 
rosaries.  Resemblances  to  Geertgen  are  easily  discoverable,  but 
several  of  the  types  differ  from  his.  In  particular  there  are  two 
heads  on  the  right,  one  of  a girl  partly  shrouded  in  a white  head- 
cloth,  the  other  of  a man,  and  they  resemble  heads  seen  in  pictures 
by  David  and  nowhere  else.  If  the  reader  will  compare  this 
picture  with  the  pair  of  wings  in  Antwerp  admittedly  by  David, 
he  will  find  points  of  similarity.  I will  mention  only  the  hands, 

^ I wonder  whether  Geertgen  was  called  “ little  Gerard  ” to  distinguish  him  from 
this  other  painter  Gerard,  his  contemporary. 

* Sold  by  auction  at  Berlin  in  1908. 


277 


278 


GERARD  DAVID 


where  the  depressions  between  the  fingers  are  carried  down  the 
back  almost  to  the  wrist.  The  composition  cannot  have  been 
David’s,  but  the  actual  painting  unites  some  of  the  characteristics 
of  both  the  young  artists  and  suggests  an  early  mutual  influence 
or  co-operation.  David’s  Dutch  education  is  apparent  in  a triptych 
the  centre-piece  of  which,  with  the  Nailing  of  Christ  to  the  Cross, 
is  in  the  Layard  Collection  at  the  National  Gallery,  and  the  afore- 
said wings,  with  the  holy  women  and  other  onlookers,  at  Antwerp. 
This  is  the  earliest  generally  accepted  picture  by  him.  It  is 
interesting  rather  than  beautiful,  and  fuller  of  promise  than 
performance.  We  need  not  delay  over  it. 

E.  von  Bodenhausen’s  excellent  and  scholarly  book  on  David 
renders  any  lengthy  discussion  of  his  work  here  superfluous. 
That  book  has  taken  its  place  as  authoritative  and  includes  in  its 
catalogue  most  of  the  master’s  known  pictures.  Others  identified 
later  on  are  discussed  in  an  article  by  Bodenhausen  and  Valentiner 
in  the  Zeitschrift  fur  bildende  Kunst  (May  1911).  A revised  list 
has  recently  been  issued  by  Friedlander.'  Bodenhausen’s  book 
contains  all  the  references  the  student  will  require,  especially  those 
to  Weale’s  first  publication  of  his  various  discoveries  in  archives 
recording  facts  relating  to  David.  We  may  therefore  deal  here 
in  the  briefest  manner  with  the  known  events  of  his  life. 

Soon  after  his  arrival  in  Bruges  he  attained  a good  position 
in  the  town  and,  in  and  after  1488,  office  in  the  Guild.  In  1496 
he  married  Cornelia,  daughter  of  Jacob  Cnoop,  a prominent  local 
goldsmith.  In  1508  he  joined  the  Confraternity  of  Our  Lady  of 
the  Dry  Tree,  at  the  head  of  which  was  the  Duke,  while  the  members 
were  for  the  most  part  nobles  and  leading  citizens.  1509  is  the 
date  of  the  Rouen  altar-piece  which  David  painted  and  presented 
to  the  Carmelite  nuns  of  Sion  in  Bruges.  In  1515  he  joined  the 
Antwerp  Guild,  whether  merely  on  the  occasion  of  a visit  for  some 
special  purpose  or  with  the  idea  of  settling  in  that  increasingly 
prosperous  art-centre  ; in  any  case  he  remained  resident  at  Bruges 
and  died  there  in  1523,  leaving  behind  him  an  unmarried  daughter. 

Three  Nativities  (at  Budapest,  in  the  Kaufmann  Collection, 
and  in  private  possession  in  Paris),  a pair  of  wings  with  saints  in 

1 Von  Eyck  bis  Bruegel  (Berlin,  1916).  See  also  Winkler  in  Monatshejte  f.  K.,  1913, 
p.  272. 


HAARLEM  NATIVITIES 


279 


the  Kaufmann  Collection,  and  the  Sedano  triptych  in  the  Louvre 
are  characteristic  early  works.  Of  the  three  Nativities,  the  Paris 
example  comes  first.'  It  is  pure  Haarlem  work,  very  simple  in 
composition,  the  Virgin  of  Geertgen’s  earliest  type  (compare  his 
Brunswick  diptych),  the  kneeling  angels  like  his  in  the  Amsterdam 
Nativity.  The  only  original  touch  is  the  shepherd  boy  looking 
in  at  the  doorway  of  the  roofless  building.  Slightly  more  advanced 
is  the  Budapest  picture,  in  which  the  boy  has  come  further 
forward,  the  angels  turn  their  very  Dutch  backs  upon  us,  and  an 
elaborate  landscape  fills  the  distance.  A similar  Virgin,  similar 
angels  and  landscape  reappear  in  the  Kaufmann  version,  but  the 
other  figures  are  different,  and  the  shepherd  boy  is  now,  I think, 
a portrait  of  the  young  artist  himself.  Joseph  has  become  a clean- 
shaven person  in  whose  portrait-like  head  some  friend  of  the  artist 
may  be  commemorated.  The  two  landscapes  are  interesting. 
They  include  a curious  circular  building  surrounded  by  flying 
buttresses  which  David  introduced  into  some  of  his  backgrounds 
to  the  end  of  his  days  ; it  was  borrowed  from  him  by  other  artists. 
There  is  nothing  to  show  that  any  of  these  Nativities  was  painted 
after  he  left  Holland.  In  style  they  are  Dutch.  But  when  we 
come  to  the  little  Kaufmann  wings,  we  find  David  beginning  to 
study  the  Van  Eycks,  for  the  wooded  background  behind  John 
the  Baptist  is  imitated  from  a wing  of  the  Adoration  of  the  Lamb. 
Friedlander  points  out  that  the  Child  in  the  Sedano  triptych  in 
the  Louvre,  another  early  work,  must  have  been  suggested  by  John 
van  Eyck’s  infant  Christ  in  the  Paele  Madonna,  while  in  a some- 
what later  version  of  the  same  composition  (Coll.  J.  G.  Johnson, 
No.  329)  and  in  other  pictures  the  carpet  is  also  taken  from  the 
same  source  ; but  he  fails  to  observe  that  in  both  cases  the  harping 
and  luting  angels  come  out  of  Campin’s  Virgin  of  Salamanca.^ 
In  the  Louvre  picture  David  also  borrows  the  general  arrangement, 
as  well  as  the  little  cherubs  aloft  holding  festoons,  from  Memling’s 
picture  in  the  Uffizi,  the  angels  in  which  likewise  descend  from 
Campin,  but  David  went  back  to  the  original  source  for  them. 

1 In  1874  this  was  in  the  Collection  of  the  Due  de  Galliera,  Phot.  Braun,  16361. 

* Bodenhausen  and  Valentiner  also  ascribe  to  David’s  early  period  a roundel  of  the 
Virgin  and  Child  in  the  J.  G.  Johnson  Collection,  which  is  copied  from  an  often-repeated 
type  invented  by  Campin. 


280 


GERARD  DAVID 


Thus  in  his  earliest  period  we  find  our  artist  indebted  to  the  Van 
Eycks,  Campin,  and  Memling,  beside  his  Dutch  masters.  More- 
over, he  does  not  merely  learn  from  his  predecessors  by  study  of 
their  methods,  but  takes  forms,  figures,  arrangements,  and  even 
details  directly  from  them.  He  is  more  than  influenced  by  them ; 
he  is  a confessed  borrower.  Later  on  he  similarly  borrowed  from 
Roger,  the  Bruges  Lucia  Master,  and  three  Netherlands  engravers 
— ^the  Master  of  Zwolle,  W>^,  and  the  Master  of  the  Playing  Cards. 
It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  originality  in  composition  was  not  his 
strong  point.  We  have  already  seen  that  a lack  of  it  is  characteristic 
of  the  whole  Netherlandish  school  at  this  time. 

If  David  had  not  possessed  countervailing  merits  of  his  own,  we 
need  not  have  further  concerned  ourselves  with  him  and  his  work, 
but  that  he  did  possess  such  merits  is  proved  by  the  desire  of  every 
gallery  to  possess  his  pictures,  the  prices  paid  for  them,  and  the 
honour  in  which  they  are  hung.  In  the  early  group  under  con- 
sideration the  charm  is  present,  and  it  is  independent  of  borrowing ; 
it  is  David’s  own.  I think  that  the  essential  element  in  this  charm 
is  the  painter’s  genuineness.  He  was  old-fashioned,  but  genuinely 
so.  It  was  not  a pose.  He  was  constitutionally  religious.  One 
might  imagine  him  at  home  with  the  Brethren  of  the  Common 
Life  or  any  of  the  mystic  fellowships  whose  days  of  vitality  were 
coming  to  an  end  when  David  was  born.  The  atmosphere  of  his 
pictures  is  like  that  of  The  Imitation  of  Christ.  David  was  the  only 
Northern  artist  who  ever  painted  a St.  Francis  at  all  acceptably. 
The  little  wing  picture  of  the  Stigmatization  is  almost  credible. 
The  painter  felt  and  rendered  something  of  the  ecstasy  of  the 
Saint.  In  face  and  figure  he  is  wholly  wrapt  up  in  his  vision.  The 
contrast  between  him  and  the  unfelt  John  the  Baptist  on  the 
pendant  is  remarkable.  The  latter  is  a mere  emblem,  emotion- 
less, meaningless.  The  former  is  intoxicated  with  God.  David’s 
nature  seems  to  me  to  have  been  a deeper  one  than  Memling’ s. 
There  is  much  in  common  in  the  spirit  of  their  art,  but  Memling, 
for  all  his  dexterous  and  pleasant  handling,  is  more  superficial, 
more  like  a man  who  adapts  himself,  easily  and  naturally  enough, 
yet  still  adapts  himself,  to  the  taste  of  the  little  society  for  whom 
he  worked.  David  needed  no  adaptation.  He  painted  what  and 
how  he  really  liked  to  paint.  Memling’ s best  pictures  are  his 


HIS  CHARACTER 


281 


portraits.  David  painted  few  portraits  except  of  devotional  donors. 
Friedlander  attributes  to  him  the  half-length  likeness  of  an  ecclesi- 
astic, with  the  towers  of  Bruges  in  the  background,  which  has 
long  been  a puzzle  in  the  National  Gallery.  Possibly  the  portrait 
of  Joos  Van  der  Burg  on  the  diptych  in  the  Fogg  Museum  at  Cam- 
bridge, Mass.,  dated  1496,  may  also  be  his.  I have  not  seen  it. 
The  Virgin  and  Child  are  copied  from  Roger’s  St.  Luke.  The 
landscape  background  is  in  David’s  style,  and  the  notable  gravity 
of  the  worshipping  donor  and  of  his  gaunt-faced  patron,  St.  Jodoc, 
is  in  the  reverent  spirit  of  our  artist.^ 

With  his  conservative  religious  tendencies,  David  had  no  tempta- 
tion to  devise  original  treatments  for  the  round  of  sacred  subjects 
he  had  to  paint.  To  borrow  was  but  to  follow  the  good  old  tradi- 
tion. What  David  did  not  and  could  not  have  borrowed  was  the 
reverential  mood  that  governed  his  hand.  Forms  and  details 
he  could  pick  up  here  and  there  as  he  saw  what  pleased  him,  but 
his  art  was  not  in  the  forms.  Its  vitality  was  deep  within  himself. 
Alike  in  the  naivete  of  his  earliest  works  and  the  complete  harmony 
and  expressiveness  of  the  later,  the  spirit  is  the  same.  A single 
pure  and  simple  character  is  behind  them  all.  It  follows  that 
the  handiwork  of  the  man  is  of  a piece  with  his  nature.  We  need 
not  look  to  him  for  technical  innovations  nor  fear  to  be  put  off 
with  a slipshod  technique.  There  is  nothing  cheap  about  David’s 
art.  If  half  a hundred  or  more  of  his  pictures  have  survived  the 
misuse  of  men  through  half  a thousand  years  it  is  because  their 
maker  was  a thoroughly  sound  and  conscientious  craftsman. 
His  methods  were  those  of  the  Van  Eycks,  and  of  the  best  of  their 
successors  throughout  the  fifteenth  century.  All  that  was  personal 
to  him  about  them  was  his  selection  and  combination  of  colours. 
His  best  pictures  have  a richness  all  their  own.  Later,  under  the 
influence  of  Quentin  Massys,  he  adopted  a lighter  chord.  Whether 
we  care  for  the  ideal  that  he  expressed  or  not,  no  one  can  help 
enjoying  the  aesthetic  pleasure  his  works  yield  to  the  eye.  It  is 
reposed  and  comforted  when  turned  upon  them  and  away  from 
the  discords  of  normal  surroundings. 

In  1488  David’s  position  was  so  assured  in  Bruges  that  the 

1 The  top  of  David’s  favourite  circular  buttressed  budding  can  be  seen  at  the  foot 
of  Calvary  in  the  landscape. 


282 


GERARD  DAVID 


magistrates  entrusted  him  with  a commission  to  paint  two  Justice 
pictures  commemorative  of  “ the  execution  of  the  judge  Peter 
Lanehals  and  other  members  of  the  late  administration,  who, 
having  been  found  guilty  of  corruption  and  malversation,  had  been 
condemned  to  death.”  The  paintings  were  to  show  Sisamnes 
arrested  by  Cambyses,  and  Sisamnes  being  flayed  alive.  Poor 
David  ! No  subjeets  could  have  been  less  in  his  line,  for  he  was 
not  a dramatic  artist.  He  went  slowly  to  work,  took  ten  years 
over  the  job,  and  no  doubt  had  the  assistance  of  learned  persons. 
He  aequitted  himself  well  enough  with  the  first  picture,  and  even 
makes  us  feel  the  cold  perspiration  breaking  out  on  the  unjust 
judge’s  head  as  the  king  upbraids  him ; but  the  second  is  purely 
horrible.  Ill-informed  persons  have  praised  it  as  a careful  study 
from  nature,  imagining  that  a human  skin  could  thus  be  detached 
exactly  as  one  skins  a rabbit ! But  it  cannot.  David,  luckily 
for  him  even  in  that  day  of  horrors,  had  never  watched  a man  being 
flayed  alive.  He  had  to  do  the  best  he  could  with  what  was  to 
be  seen  at  a buteher’s.  He  tried  to  supply  what  was  asked  of  him. 
There  is  something  hideously  practical  in  the  way  the  victim 
is  fastened  to  the  operating-table.  Perhaps  the  local  torture- 
chambers  supplied  that  idea.  But  it  is  all  too  dreadful  to  dwell 
on,  and  David  must  have  been  as  glad  as  we  are  to  turn  from 
the  disgusting  business.  Here  also,  by  the  by,  he  used  again 
Memling’s  cherubs  and  festoons,  beside  introducing  as  bas-reliefs 
two  enlargements  of  famous  antique  gems,  one  the  well-known 
Medieean  Apollo  and  Marsyas,  a copy  of  which  is  worn  by  Botti- 
celli’s fair  Florentine  lady  with  the  golden  hair  in  the  Stadel  Gallery 
at  Frankfurt. 

Among  the  pietures  painted  by  David  before  1500  must  be 
reckoned  the  Munich  Adoration  of  the  Magi  which  Friedlander 
identified  (by  comparing  it  with  an  inferior  copy  at  Berlin)  as  an 
imitation  of  a lost  original  by  Van  der  Goes.  The  date  of  another 
Magi  pieture  by  David  at  Brussels  can  be  roughly  inferred  from 
the  faet,  observed  by  Weale,  that  a miniature  copy  of  it  appears 
in  a manuscript  which  had  already  arrived  in  Spain  in  1497.  A 
Pieta  in  the  J.  G.  Johnson  Colleetion  carries  on  the  Roger  tradition  ; 
the  wings  belonging  to  it  are  in  the  Colleetion  of  Mr.  Philip  Lehman 
of  New  York.  It  shows  the  artist’s  growing  ability,  especially 


HIS  BEST  PERIOD 


283 


in  the  treatment  of  landseape,  and  will  serve  to  introduee  us  to 
the  culminating  period  of  his  artistic  career.  The  Annunciation 
on  the  outsides  of  the  wings  was  to  be  developed  by  him  later  in 
another  version.  In  the  earlier  the  form  of  the  panels  necessitated 
simple  standing  postures  for  both  figures,  but  in  the  Sigmaringen 
panels  he  gave  to  Gabriel  drapery  agitated  by  swift  movement 
and  a more  commanding  gesture  of  the  hand.  At  Frankfurt 
is  a good  studio  picture  of  the  same  subject,  probably  designed 
by  him,  which  is  yet  further  developed. 

In  David’s  mature  period  he  painted  on  a larger  scale.  His 
altar-piece  in  the  Bruges  Museum  is  a good  example  of  his  accom- 
plishment at  this  time.  The  donor  was  John  des  Trompes,  who 
is  introduced  on  one  wing  with  his  boy  ; his  first  wife,  Elizabeth 
van  der  Meersch,  and  their  four  daughters  face  him  on  the  other. 
As  she  died  in  1502  the  centre  panel,  with  the  Baptism  and  the 
insides  of  the  wings,  must  have  been  painted  by  that  date.  The 
outsides  were  added  later,  but  before  1510,  seeing  that  they  bear 
a Virgin  and  Child  adored  by  Magdalena  Cordier,  the  second  wife, 
who  died  in  that  year.  The  Baptism  is  remarkable  for  its  extensive 
and  elaborate  landscape,  and  specially  for  the  carefully  studied 
ripples  on  the  water  and  their  reticulation  by  reflexion  from  the 
banks — proof  that  David  went  to  Nature  and  not  only  to  previous 
landscape  painters  for  ideas.  The  ivy  climbing  up  a tree  trunk, 
the  accurately  depicted  flowers,  the  air  perspective,  and  other 
features  confirm  this  observation.  David  brought  his  landscape 
style  with  him  from  Holland.  Two  of  his  early  Nativities  contain 
extensive  landscapes,  and  prove  that  he  possessed  a sketchbook 
of  studies  from  nature.  In  the  background  of  the  Budapest 
picture  is  a charming  mediaeval  village,  obviously  from  a sketch. 
There  is  also  high  up  on  the  right  a bit  of  cliff  of  horizontally 
stratified  rock,  which  must  actually  have  been  seen  and  noted. 
He  repeated  the  village  in  the  Kaufmann  Nativity,  and  much  later 
in  the  National  Gallery  Adoration  of  the  Magi.  The  rock-cliff, 
but  rising  out  of  grass  at  a low  level,  reappears  in  the  Kaufmann 
Nativity.  The  kind  of  rocks  thus  adopted  by  David  are  found 
in  his  landscapes  to  the  end.  He  never  made  them  overhang, 
nor  did  he  develop  them  fantastically  like  most  Flemish  painters 
of  his  and  the  next  generation.  He  did  not  find  these  rocks  at 


284 


GERARD  DATID 


Haarlem  ; he  must  have  seen  them  on  his  way  through  a hilly 
distriet.  The  nearest  approach  to  them  in  an  earlier  picture 
are  those  in  the  Van  Eyck  St.  Francis,  but  they  are  not  the  same. 
David  was  fond  of  wide  sloping  or  gently  domed  areas  of  meadow. 
His  distant  hills  are  vaguer  and  more  bathed  in  air  than,  for  instance. 
Bouts’.  The  skyline  is  sometimes  very  soft,  outlining  distant  hills 
in  successive  ranges  melting  away  behind  one  another,  as  for 
instance  in  the  National  Gallery  St.  Jerome  (No.  2596),  a work  of 
the  artist’s  last  years.  In  depicting  trees  and  woods  he  advanced 
beyond  his  predecessors.  If  he  took  a hint  from  the  dense  back- 
ground of  a wing  of  the  Adoration  of  the  Lamb  he  worked  out 
the  suggestion  in  the  presence  of  nature.  He  thronged  his  trees 
together  and  introduced  figures  among  them  in  the  shade.  He 
found  delight  in  varieties  of  foliage  and  different  habits  of  growth. 
A good  example  of  his  accomplishment  in  this  kind  is  the  wood 
in  the  middle  distance  behind  Salviati  in  the  National  Gallery 
wing,  or  that  behind  the  Virgin  and  Child  in  the  picture  in  the 
Stoop  Collection. 

The  Marriage  at  Cana  in  the  Louvre  was  painted  about  1503 
or  a little  later  for  the  same  John  de  Sedano  above  mentioned.* 
The  view  through  the  window  includes  “the  old  palace  of  the 
Liberty  of  Bruges,  the  church  of  St.  Donatian,  and  some  of  its 
dependent  buildings,”  as  they  appeared  at  the  time  from  the  porch 
of  St.  Basil’s,  in  which  church  the  Confraternity  of  the  Holy  Blood 
had  their  chapel.  It  is  evident  that  the  personages  in  the  Cana 
picture  were  studied  from  life.  We  fortunately  possess  a few 
fragments  of  one  of  David’s  sketchbooks  containing  such  studies. 
They  were  in  the  Von  Lanna  Collection,  and  one  is  now  in  the 
Stadel  Institute.  That  includes  the  likeness  of  the  bride,  but  not 
in  the  position  finally  adopted  for  her.' 

The  Virgo  inter  Virgines  at  Rouen  (of  1509)  and  the  Marriage 
of  St.  Catherine  in  the  National  Gallery  are  important  pictures  of 
David’s  best  period.  The  former,  as  aforesaid,  was  painted  for  the 

1 John  de  Sedano  joined  the  GuUd  of  the  Holy  Blood  in  1503,  so  the  picture  cannot 
have  been  painted  earlier. 

2 Burlington  Mag.,  May  1908,  p.  155.  Another  drawing  at  Frankfurt  is  attributed 
to  David  by  Winkler,  but  to  Bouts  by  the  Museum  authorities.  It  is  more  like  the  work 
of  David  than  Bouts,  but  is  it  by  either  ? 


THE  VIRGO  INTER  VIRGINES 


285 


Carmelite  Nuns,  the  latter  for  Richard  de  Visch  van  der  Capelle, 
Cantor  of  St.  Donatian’s.^  They  are  among  our  artist’s  most 
beautiful  works.  In  a corner  of  the  Rouen  picture  David  has 
introduced  his  own  portrait,  identified  as  such  by  an  inscribed 
drawing  of  it  at  Arras.  In  type  and  expression  it  agrees  perfectly 
with  the  self-revelation  of  the  pictures  themselves.  Some  of  the 
saints  and  angels  around  the  Virgin  are  beautiful  women,  and  one 
is  certainly  the  prettiest  in  any  primitive  Netherlands  picture. 
The  general  arrangement  of  the  composition  is  borrowed  from  that 
very  dull  work  the  Altar-piece  of  the  Drie  Sanctinnen  by  the 
Bruges  Lucia  Master.  In  it  Catherine’s  wheels  are  woven  into  the 
pattern  of  the  brocade  of  her  dress ; here  they  are  set  as  ornaments 
in  her  crown,  and  Barbara  wears  her  tower  in  like  fashion — an 
ingenious  way  of  introducing  emblems. 

In  the  Munich  Gallery,  in  that  of  the  Academy  of  St.  Luke 
at  Rome,  and  in  the  Arco-Valley  and  von  Heyl  Collections  are 
associated  versions  of  the  Virgo  inter  Virgines.  Bodenhausen  thinks 
that  behind  them  all  is  a lost  original  by  David.  He  points  out 
that  the  Buckingham  Palace  picture,  already  noticed  by  us  (p.  252), 
painted  by  a Bruges  artist  about  1480,  represents  a yet  earlier 
lost  original  to  which  (or  to  this  very  repetition  of  it)  David  was 
indebted.  The  Roman  picture  stands  nearest  to  this  earlier 
version,  especially  in  the  landscape ; the  Munich  example  is 
closest  to  David.  The  subject  was  one  peculiarly  suited  to  the  gifts 
and  preferences  of  David  and  his  followers.  The  Child  on  the 
Virgin’s  lap  in  the  Roman  altar-piece  is  fingering  a bunch  of 
grapes.  David  was  so  pleased  with  this  innovation  that  he 
employed  it  again  in  the  Rest  by  the  Way  in  the  J.  P.  Morgan 
Collection  and  in  the  Madonna-panel  of  the  Genoa  triptych 
(Palazzo  Brignole  Sale).  The  former  picture  is  representative  of 
an  attractive  group  of  Madonnas  in  which  the  landscape  is  a more 
important  element  than  ever  before  in  Madonnas  of  the  school. 
Examples  that  may  be  cited  are  those  belonging  to  the  Frank  Stoop 
and  Nemes  Collections.  They  were  evidently  popular  works,  and 

^ His  cantor’s  staff  lies  beside  him  on  the  ground  ; it  was  given  to  St.  Donatian’s 
in  1337  (Beffroi,  i,  p.  337).  Few  cantors’  staves  have  come  down  to  us.  That  which 
belonged  to  the  Sainte-Chapelle  in  Paris  is  in  the  Cabinet  des  Medailles,  the  head  of  it 
being  an  antique  chalcedony  bust  of  a Roman  emperor  in  a fourteenth  century  setting. 
-\nother  (of  the  thirteenth  century)  was  in  the  Magniac  sale. 

20 


286 


GERARD  DAVID 


were  frequently  imitated  or  repeated  in  the  Master’s  own  studio.* 
Patinir  and  painters  of  his  group  developed  the  type  by  greatly 
reducing  the  scale  of  the  figures  and  enlarging  the  scope  of  the 
landscape,  so  that  it  became  the  real  subject,  the  figures  mere 
accessories. 

A striking  picture  of  St.  Michael  and  the  dragon  is  at  Vienna 
(No.  626).  It  is  highly  finished  on  a small  scale  (66  x 53  cm.). 
The  devils  do  not  show  the  inventive  ingenuity  of  Jerome  Bosch, 
but  they  are  reduced  to  a proper  insignificance  by  the  beauty  of  the 
archangel  and  the  fine  sweep  of  his  drapery.  They  resemble 
the  devils  in  the  Ars  Moriendi  block-book.  The  design  is  based 
on  a lost  engraving  by  the  Master  of  the  Playing  Cards,  known  to  us 
from  a pen-and-ink  copy  in  the  British  Museum.*  It  is  interesting 
to  observe  that  the  paintings  on  the  outsides  of  the  wings  recall 
the  style  of  David’s  old  fellow-pupil  Geertgen  in  one  of  his  earliest 
works — the  Brunswick  diptych.  On  the  insides  of  the  wings  are 
St.  Jerome  and  St.  Anthony  of  Padua.  The  former  almost 
exactly  reproduces  the  same  figure  on  one  of  the  panels  at  Genoa, 
now  framed  in  a triptych  with  the  above-mentioned  Virgin  and 
Child  with  the  Grapes.  All  three  panels  belonged  to  a larger 
composition.  The  St.  Anthony  reappears  among  the  panels  of 
the  St.  Anne  altar-piece,  which  is  now  broken  up  and  scattered. 
That  figure  was  suggested  by  an  engraving  of  St.  Augustine  by 
the  Master  of  Zwolle.  It  should  also  be  mentioned  that  David 
found  St.  Michael’s  crosier  in  one  of  Martin  Schongauer’s  prints. 
The  three  great  panels  in  the  Widener  Collection  with  St.  Anne, 
St.  Nicholas,  and  St.  Anthony  of  Padua  are  the  largest  and 
emptiest  works  by  David.  Six  small  panels  with  illustrations  of 
the  legends  of  those  saints,  which  are  in  the  Wantage  Collection 
and  belong  to  the  same  altar-piece,  show  how  much  happier  he  was 
when  working  on  a small  scale.  A panel  of  the  Pieta,  which  passed 
through  the  Nemes  Collection  to  somewhere  in  America,  also 
belonged  to  the  same  polyptych,  and  there  may  have  been  more 

1 Repetitions  of  the  whole  with  slight  changes  belong  to  the  Pablo  Bosch  and  Antwerp 
Galleries.  A half-length  replica  of  the  Bosch  Virgin  with  a different  background  is  in 
the  possession  of  Messrs.  Agnew.  These  come  very  close  indeed  to  the  Master’s  own 
handiwork,  and  he  probably  sold  them  out  of  his  studio.  He  may  have  painted  on  all 
of  them  himself. 

* Reproduced  in  the  Berlin  Jahrbuch,  xviii,  p.  46. 


AS  MINIATURIST 


287 


beside.  The  Wantage  pictures  show  David  at  his  best  as  a 
narrative  painter.  The  puzzled  father  of  three  dowerless  girls, 
the  reverent  donkey,  and  St.  Anthony’s  Fish-congregation  are 
rendered  with  the  naive  good  faith  essential  to  the  proper  telling 
of  fairy-tales.  Such  pictures,  brightly  coloured,  would  still  be  the 
joy  of  any  nursery. 

At  Bruges  no  artist  might  paint  pictures  who  was  not  a member 
of  the  painters’  guild,  nor  miniatures  unless  he  belonged  to  the 
guild  of  miniaturists.  Weale  has  shown  that  Gerard  David 
belonged  to  both  and  was  the  first  considerable  painter  of  whom 
that  was  true.  His  wife  also  was  a chartered  miniaturist.  Can  we 
find  any  work  of  this  kind  ascribable  to  either  ? Three  miniatures, 
framed  as  a triptych,  and  said  to  have  come  out  of  the  Abbey 
of  the  Dunes,  were  shown  at  the  Bruges  Exhibition  in  1902 
(No.  130).  Mr.  Weale  discovered  and  attributed  them  to  Cornelia 
Cnoop  upon  the  authority  of  an  old  inscription  written  on  the 
back.  The  Virgin  and  Child  are  copied  from  the  Nemes  Madonna, 
with  a landscape  background  which  reappears  on  a page  of 
Binnink’s  Heures  dites  de  Hennesey.  It  includes  the  chateau 
of  Louis  de  Gruuthuuse  at  Oostcamp  near  Bruges.  Technically, 
it  is  on  a level  with  many  of  the  pages  in  the  Grimani  Breviary 
and  assoeiated  manuscripts.  The  search  for  manuscripts  in  the 
decoration  of  which  David  may  have  taken  part  has  been  hotly 
pursued.'  The  latest  choice  has  fallen  on  some  miniatures  in  the 
Breviary  of  Isabella  of  Spain  in  the  British  Museum  (Add.  MS.  1851), 
where  the  Magi  miniature  is  a version  of  David’s  copy  of  the  lost 
Van  der  Goes  and  the  Nativity  recalls  his  early  painting  now 
at  Budapest.  At  what  period  of  his  life  is  David  likely  to  have 
painted  two  miniatures  which  in  style  group  themselves  with  his 
own  paintings  of  different  dates  in  his  career  ? If  the  John  at 
Patmos  is  added  a third  style  must  have  been  employed  simul- 
taneously with  the  other  two.  If,  however,  we  attribute  these 
miniatures  to  followers  the  difficulty  vanishes.  David’s  designs 
and  types  were  frequently  copied  by  miniaturists  of  the  partnership 
which  co-operatively  produced  such  famous  manuscripts  as  the 
Venice  Grimani  Breviary,  the  Vienna  Hortulus  animae,  and 
others  of  that  well-defined  group  of  late  fifteenth  and  early  sixteenth 

' See  Monatshefte  f.  K.,  1913,  p.  274. 


288 


GERARD  DAVID 


century  date  ; but  it  does  not  follow  that  David  was  head  of  the 
workshop  [that  contracted  to  make  them.  The  Horebouts,  the 
Benninks,  and  other  important  recorded  miniaturists  have  to  be 
remembered,  and  they  may  have  repeated  David’s  types  without 
being  in  his  employ. 

A near  approach  to  a miniature  by  David,  in  scale  and  style, 
though  not  in  technique,  is  to  be  found  in  a pair  of  small,  finely 
painted  diptychs  with  equal  claim  to  genuineness  and  closely 
alike  in  subject.  One  is  included  in  the  Van  Gelder  Collection, 
the  other  in  the  National  Museum  at  Munich.  As  works  of  art 
they  are  superior  to  any  of  the  miniatures,  all  of  which  lack 
the  quality  of  spontaneousness  and  pictorial  invention  with 
which  these  little  panels  are  instinct.  Equally  fine  and  finished 
is  another  little  painting,  now  in  the  New  York  Museum.  It  is  a 
late  work  approximating  in  style  to  the  Descent  from  the  Cross 
presently  to  be  referred  to.  It  shows  Christ  taking  leave  of  the 
Holy  Women,  and  is  a tenderly  pathetic  rendering  of  a subject 
which  to  David  at  any  rate  was  not  hackneyed.  He  did  not  feel 
called  upon  to  depict  a passionate  and  gesticulating  grief  such  as 
presently  was  to  become  popular — the  noisier  the  less  convincing. 
These  people  are  gravely  sad,  yet  make  their  passion  felt.  Any 
similar  emotional  expression  in  figures  drawn  on  a large  scale 
was  impossible  to  David,  nor  indeed  could  he  imagine  the  majestic 
in  any  form,  as  his  heads  of  Christ  in  the  Johnson  and  Schickler 
Collections  amply  prove.  He  was  at  home  in  a world  of  humility 
and  gentleness  ; and  it  is  in  such  a picture  as  that  of  the  Holy 
Family  belonging  to  M.  Martin  Le  Roy  (Paris),  where  little  more 
than  the  three  heads  are  shown,  that  he  attracts  our  admiration — 
almost  our  affection. 

When,  in  1515,  David  had  his  name  inscribed  in  the  books  of 
the  Antwerp  Guild,  he  must  have  spent  or  intended  to  spend 
some  time  in  that  busy  and  progressive  city.  He  will  have  found 
many  of  the  artists  there  impregnated  with  ideals  different  from 
his  own  and  striving  to  attain  novel  effects  that  cannot  have 
appealed  to  him  as  very  desirable.  It  is  evident,  however,  that  he 
felt  the  influence  of  the  place  and  especially  of  his  great  contem- 
porary Quentin  Massy s,  who  was  at  work  there  exciting  the 
admiration  and  emulation  of  his  fellows.  The  Le  Roy  picture 


AT  ANTWERP 


289 


betrays  this  influence,  though  David  did  not  have  to  borrow  from 
Massys  the  motive  of  the  kiss.  That,  as  we  know,  had  been  used 
by  followers  of  Van  der  Weyden.  Large  heads  of  the  kind  had 
been  painted  by  Memling  and  another  artist  whose  picture  is  in 
the  J.  G.  Johnson  Collection  (No.  341)  and  others  were  made  by 
Mostaert.^  More  obviously  diverted  by  Antwerp  pressure  is  a 
half-length  Virgin  and  Child  in  the  Traumann  Collection,  whereof 
there  are  variations  or  copies  in  the  de  Forest  Collection  at  New 
York,  at  Brussels  and  Strasburg,  and  in  the  Palazzo  Brignole 
Sale  at  Genoa,  beside  others  that  have  passed  through  the  sale- 
room in  recent  years.  The  type  is  vulgarly  called  the  “ Soup 
Madonna,”  because  the  Virgin  is  feeding  the  Child  with  a spoon 
from  a bowl  on  the  table  before  her.  This  domestic  incident  of 
homely  character  was  very  modern,  very  Art  nouveau  in  its  day ; 
it  evidently  hit  the  popular  taste.  The  Virgin’s  type  approximates 
to  that  of  the  ladies  as  afterwards  painted  again  and  again  in 
various  characters  by  Ambrose  Benson,  the  Master  called  of  the 
Half  Lengths,  and  Joos  van  Cleef.  Antwerp  influence  is  again 
observable  in  a Virgin  with  Saints  belonging  to  the  New  York 
Historical  Society.  Here  the  landscape  is  of  novel  character  for 
David.  It  is  one  of  those  very  extensive  landscapes  full  of  detail 
and  incident  which  we  associate  with  the  name  of  Joachim  de 
Patinir  and  shall  have  more  to  say  about  hereafter.  Possibly 
in  this  case  David  employed  a professed  landscapist  to  paint  in 
the  background  for  him. 

A pair  of  pictures  in  the  National  Gallery — the  Three  Kings 
and  the  Deposition — ^approximately  of  the  same  size  (about  two  feet 
square)  which  came  to  their  present  home  together  and  have  been 
together  as  far  back  as  their  history  can  be  traced,  were  probably 
parts  of  a single  work.  The  former  is  the  only  picture  which  bears 
David’s  signature.  The  name  “ Oudewater  ” was  impressed  into 
the  paint  while  it  was  still  wet  by  being  written  with  the  sharp 
end  of  a brush-stick.  This  was  pointed  out  five-and-twenty 
years  ago  or  more  by  Sir  Walter  Armstrong,  yet  the  critics,  except 
Friedlander,  cannot  see  the  Master’s  hand  in  either  picture,  though 
that  he  designed  both  is  not  denied.  The  Deposition  shows  the 
co-operation  of  an  assistant,  but  the  Magi  is  for  the  most  part 

^ In  the  Schleissheim  and  Clemens  Collections. 


290 


GERARD  DAVID 


by  the  Master  himself.  It  adopts  the  lighter  ehord  of  eolour  whieh 
David  now  borrowed  from  Massys.  The  village  in  the  baekground, 
as  mentioned  above,  is  a repetition  of  one  of  the  sketehes  made  in 
his  Dutch  days.  In  the  Deposition  the  Virgin  embraces  the  head 
of  Christ,  tenderly  pressing  it  against  her  cheek  with  her  right  hand. 
This  motive  was  often  repeated  by  David’s  followers  in  half- 
lengths  or  merely  heads,  as  at  Petrograd,  The  Hague,  and  elsewhere.* 
It  has  been  pointed  out  that  the  composition  goes  back  to  Geertgen, 
and  this  though  Massys’  famous  picture  of  the  same  subject,  dated 
1511,  must  have  been  known  to  David. 

To  the  final  period  of  his  career  belongs  what  is  perhaps  his 
most  dramatic  work,  a Descent  from  the  Cross,  last  heard  of  in 
the  possession  of  Messrs.  Colnaghi,  previously  in  the  Dingwall 
and  Driver  Collections.  The  figures  are  shown  at  full-length. 
Half-length  copies  are  numerous  and  one  or  more  have  been  claimed 
for  the  Master  himself.  The  Antwerp  influence  here  discovered 
by  other  writers  is  not  visible  to  me.  On  the  contrary,  this 
composition  is  an  example  of  David’s  enduring  conservatism. 
A comparison  with  Bouts’  Descent  in  the  Chapel  Royal  at  Granada 
shows  that  he  had  that  picture  in  mind  in  designing  this  one. 
The  frontal  position  of  Christ,  the  Virgin  holding  His  hand,  the 
attitude  of  St.  John,  all  these  features  are  similar  in  both,  while 
the  Mary  on  the  right  with  her  hand  to  her  cheek  was  obviously 
suggested  by  a figure  on  Bouts’  Crucifixion  wing,  which  reappears 
in  the  National  Gallery  Entombment.  VV^hat,  however,  is  not 
imitated  is  the  grave  and  tender  emotion  so  genuinely  infused  into 
these  figures  by  the  later  artist,  an  emotion  which  the  stolid  Bouts 
could  not  be  expected  to  feel,  still  less  to  render. 

Some  three-quarter  length  pictures  of  the  same  subject,  closely 
connected  in  design  with  this,  have  been  called  copies  of  it.^ 
But  they  are  not  copies.  Bodenhausen  thought  the  Carvalho 
example  to  be  an  original  by  David.  "Whether  that  is  true  or  not, 
it  is  probable  that  David  painted  a three-quarter  length  version, 
reducing  the  number  of  figures  to  adapt  the  composition  to  a 

^ A Pieta  with  only  two  figures,  Christ’s  head  being  held  by  the  Virgin  at  arm’s  length, 
was  in  the  Kaufmann  Collection,  and  is  attributed  to  David,  but  doubtfully. 

2 They  are  in  the  Uffizi  (No.  846),  the  Hoschek,  Peralta,  and  Carvalho  Collections, 
and  in  Saragossa  Cathedral,  and  there  is  a drawing  in  the  British  Museum.  I have 
written  at  greater  length  on  this  group  of  pictures  in  the  Burlington  Magazine,  1916. 


HIS  LAST  WORKS 


291 


compacter  form.  In  both  designs  the  cross  is  placed  obliquely 
on  the  right  side  of  the  picture,  and  this  is  the  position  it  occupies 
in  the  Berlin  Crucifixion,  where  the  Centurion  standing  on  the  right 
is  the  same  model  with  the  same  belt  and  costume  as  the  man  on 
the  ladder  in  the  full-length  Descent ; the  Mary  with  her  hand 
to  her  cheek  likewise  reappears.  The  pains  taken  by  the  artist  in 
this  work  are  notable.  Never  did  he  devote  more  care  to  working 
out  his  individual  figures,  their  grouping,  and  the  play  of  light 
upon  them  ; the  landscape  also  is  fuller  than  usual  of  elaborate 
detail. 

Of  the  other  two  Crucifixions  painted  by  David,‘  that  at  Genoa 
is  the  more  remarkable.  It  is,  indeed,  our  artist’s  most  original 
and  impressive  work.  The  figures  are  but  three,  and  those  most 
dignified.  Not  only  are  they  the  fewest  possible,  but  the  drapery 
is  of  great  simplicity,  the  strong  vertical  line  in  St.  John’s  robe  being 
a note  of  form  that  gives  character  to  the  whole  composition. 
The  landscape  is  also  compressed  beneath  a low  horizon-line  and 
consists  of  the  plainest  elements,  treated  with  purposeful  in- 
definiteness. 

Thus  we  take  leave  of  the  Master  on  a high  level.  The  end 
of  his  life  was  near  when  he  painted  this  picture.  It  shows 
him  constant  to  the  ideals  he  had  pursued  throughout  his  career 
and  reaping  the  fruit  of  that  persistence,  not  in  a power  to  dazzle 
the  spectator  by  originality  of  invention  or  novelty  in  technical 
skill,  but  in  a more  perfect  rendering  of  fine  emotion,  impressive 
because  entirely  controlled,  and  in  full  concord  with  accepted 
tradition  and  reverence  for  that  which  “ we  have  heard  with  our 
ears  and  our  fathers  have  told  us.” 

^ In  New  York  Museum  and  the  Palazzo  Brignole  Sale  at  Genoa. 


CHAPTER  XXI 


LATER  BRUGES  ARTISTS 

We  must  deal  more  briefly  with  the  group  of  later  Bruges  artists, 
not  in  that  their  work  is  unattractive,  but  because  their  art  leads 
no  whither  and  is  mainly  carried  along  by  the  momentum  of  the 
past.  They  are  in  fact  second-rate  men,  who  with  one  exception 
put  in  practice  what  they  had  been  taught : conscientious  workers, 
but  not  originators.  They  were  made  by  their  school ; they  did 
not  shape  it.  Only  in  recent  years  has  the  memory  of  them  been 
recovered  and  some  of  their  pictures  identified. 

The  exception  above  mentioned  was  John  Provost  of  Mons, 
the  date  of  whose  birth  is  not  recorded.  He  joined  the  Antwerp 
Guild  in  1493,  but  passed  on  to  settle  at  Bruges  in  the  following 
year,  in  which  Memling  died.  He  remained  there  till  his  own  death 
in  1529.  Thus  he  followed  David  at  an  interval  of  about  a decade, 
and  died  six  years  after  him.  His  identification  with  Bruges 
was  so  complete  that  Diirer  supposed  him  to  have  been  born  there. 
No  less  than  thirty-four  or  thirty-five  pictures  have  been  attributed 
to  him,  mainly  through  the  initiative  of  Hulin  or  Friedlander. 
He  married  four  wives  in  succession  ; one  of  them  was  the  widow 
of  Simon  Marmion.  It  may  have  been  owing  to  this  connexion 
that  he  purchased  the  freedom  of  Valenciennes  in  1498,  but  he 
does  not  seem  to  have  lived  there.  He  repeatedly  filled  ofiices 
in  the  Bruges  Guild,  and  performed  the  miscellaneous  tasks 
expected  of  a painter.  He  drew  maps,  designed  architecture, 
and  carried  out  works  of  decoration.  Albert  Diirer  made  his 
acquaintance  at  Antwerp  in  September  1520,  accompanied  him 
to  Bruges,  and  stayed  in  his  house  there  in  April  1521.  On  both 
occasions  he  drew  his  host’s  portrait,  once  in  charcoal  and  once 
in  silver-point.  We  may  probably  conclude  that  Provost  spent 
the  winter  of  1520-1  in  Antwerp. 

Friedlander  indicates  a Pieta  in  the  Von  Back  Collection  at 

292 


JOHN  PROVOST 


293 


Szegedin  as  one  of  his  earliest  works.  It  is  by  no  means  charac- 
teristie  of  the  Bruges  sehool  of  about  1490.  Provost  had  evidently 
learned  his  art  elsewhere,  probably  at  his  birthplace,  Mons.  The 
queer  drawing  of  eyes  and  some  other  tricks  which  Hulin  has  pointed 
out  as  peculiar  to  Provost  are  already  apparent  in  this  picture. 
His  attempt  to  render  emotion  fails.  Details  are  painted  sketchily 
and  not  with  the  painful  minuteness  characteristic  of  his  work 
in  later  years.  Four  other  pictures,  not  easily  accessible,  are 
grouped  with  this  by  Friedlander.^ 

They  are  followed  by  a slightly  more  mature  group : an 

Adoration  of  the  Magi  at  Berlin,  a Last  Judgment  in  the  Ruffo 
de  Bonneval  Collection,  a Madonna  in  the  National  Gallery,  a pair 
of  wings  in  the  J.  G.  Johnson  Collection.  In  these  pictures 
we  can  see  the  result  of  the  artist’s  study  of  his  contemporaries 
both  at  Bruges  and  Antwerp.  Reminiscences  of  David  and  even 
Memling  can  be  discovered  in  the  Johnson  wings.  The  Last 
Judgment,  archaic  in  sentiment  and  design,  shows  Renaissance 
feeling  in  the  drawing  of  the  nudes.  David  was  again  in  Provost’s 
mind  when  he  was  designing  the  Berlin  Three  Kings,  though 
here  likewise  the  new  spirit  peeps  through.  This  and  the  other 
detail  have  been  pointed  out  as  proof  that  our  artist  was  not 
ignorant  of  the  work  of  Mabuse  and  Massys. 

In  the  Virgin  and  Child  by  a Fountain,  at  Piacenza,  Provost 
has  found  himself,  though  he  went  back  to  Van  Eyck  for  the 
fountain.  The  sweetness  of  the  Virgin,  the  boisterousness  of  the 
fluttering  angels,  the  delicacy  and  daintiness  of  the  whole  in  all 
its  parts,  these  are  Provost’s  own  accomplishment  about  the 
beginning  of  his  middle  period.  The  hedge  of  roses  above  the 
garden  bank  was  a feature  he  more  than  once  introduced.  Plants 
trained  on  a wooden  trellis  in  a similar  position  appear  behind  the 
Saint  and  Saintess  on  a pair  of  wings  of  about  1520,  one  in  the 
Prado,  the  upper  part  of  the  other  in  the  Louvre.  They  show 
Provost  at  his  best.  He  was  a lover  of  gardens  and  painted 
flowers  with  delicacy  and  care.  In  these  two  figures  and  the 


^ In  the  list  of  Provost’s  pictures  in  Von  Eyck  bis  Bruegel  (p.  187),  Friedlander  names 
only  two  at  Madrid,  the  Prado  wing  and  a Pieta  in  the  Traumann  Collection,  but  in  his 
text  (p.  120)  he  names  also  a Pieta  (phot.  Laurent  2630)  as  in  the  Prado  and  a Magi 
in  some  unparticularized  private  collection. 


294 


LATER  BRUGES  ARTISTS 


contemporary  Abraham  and  Sarah  belonging  to  Count  Paul 
Durrieu  we  find  Provost  advancing  with  the  stride  of  his  day. 
The  dog  in  the  latter  may  even  have  been  taken  from  Durer. 
The  movement,  the  freedom  of  gesture,  and  the  architectural 
accessories  indicate  that  our  artist  did  not  remain  hidebound 
to  Bruges  traditions. 

In  the  Museum  at  Bruges  is  a dull-coloured  but  remarkable 
picture,  which,  by  the  fashion  of  the  cap  worn  by  one  of  the 
figures,  can  be  dated  to  about  1520-1,  that  is  to  say,  to  the  time 
when  Provost  was  in  Antwerp.  It  shows  the  influence  of  the 
artists  then  working  in  that  city.  We  behold  one  Jan  Lanekart, 
a merchant,  in  his  office  with  open  ledger  and  money-bags  on  the 
table  before  him.  He  is  evidently  in  an  agitated  state  of  mind, 
and  well  may  be,  for  there  is  Death  on  the  other  side  of  the  table 
either  paying  down  or  picking  up  money  and  receiving  or  giving 
a receipt.  A third  individual  with  pointing  finger  stands  behind, 
and  may  be  a likeness  of  the  artist  himself.  It  resembles  the  kind 
of  self-portraits  painters  of  that  day  used  sometimes  to  introduce 
into  the  backgrounds  of  their  pictures.  Among  Durer’s  portraits, 
drawn  in  charcoal  about  this  date,  is  one  in  the  British  Museum 
(Lippmann,  No.  284)  which  bears  a striking  resemblance  to  this 
head.  It  is  perhaps  the  likeness  of  our  artist  made  by  Diirer  at 
Antwerp  in  September  1520,  just  about  the  time  when  Provost 
must  have  been  painting  this  picture.  The  reader  will  remember 
the  numerous  money-changers  and  merchants  in  their  offices 
painted  by  Massys  and  his  followers,  notably  by  Marinus  van 
Reymerswale.  They  were  evidently  popular  in  Antwerp.  The 
first  of  them  was  perhaps  Massys’  picture  in  the  Louvre,  which 
may  be  dated  1514.  St.  Jerome  in  his  cell  was  also  painted, 
with  the  like  multiplication  of  accessories.  Durer’s  St.  Jerome, 
now  at  Lisbon,  was  a work  of  the  same  character.  It  seems 
likely  that  Provost  had  that  picture  in  his  mind  when  designing 
his  “ Merchant  and  Death.”  Hence  he  may  have  derived  the 
suggestion  of  Lanekart’ s pointing  finger,  his  open  book,  and 
some  of  the  accessories.  Durer’s  skull,  if  the  drawing  for  it  is 
turned  round,  agrees  with  Provost’s,  though  the  latter  looks  as 
if  done  from  memory  or  a very  rapid  sketch.  The  ugly  old  mer- 
chant is  portrayed  with  much  animation  and  a painter’s  feeling 


PLATE  XIV 


JAN  PROVOST.  DEATH  AND  JOHN  I.ANCKART.  RRUGES.  4.  G.  DAVID.  DIPTYCH.  CAMBRIDGE,  MASS.— p.  281. 

p.  294.  [To  face  page  294. 


JOHN  PROVOST 


295 


for  the  value  of  large  surfaces  and  massive  features,  which  are 
emphasized  by  contrast  with  the  still-life  minutiae  in  the  back- 
ground. But  Provost  was  not  a good  portrait-painter  and  had  no 
gift  for  penetrating  the  secrets  of  a character.  An  interesting 
fragment,  with  a donor’s  head,  in  the  Johnson  Collection  exhibits 
his  limitations  in  this  respect.  Better  are  the  donors  on  the 
wings  of  the  Buckingham  Palace  triptych,  a characteristic  work 
of  the  artist’s  central  period.  The  over-elaborate  architecture 
of  the  Virgin’s  throne  and  goldsmithy  of  the  croziers  marks  the 
coming  of  the  Fantastic  which  rioted  in  Antwerp  studios  from 
about  this  time  forward.  But  the  picture  is  pleasingly  lit  and 
the  traditional  composition  well  balanced  and  wrought  out  in 
workmanlike  fashion.  A Madonna  at  Amsterdam  is  of  the  same 
period  as  the  preceding,  but  here  the  donor’s  portrait  is  the 
weakest  part  of  the  picture. 

In  none  of  these  works  does  Provost  display  the  charms  of  a 
colourist.  His  compositions  are  good,  he  often  draws  well,  his 
accessories  are  finely  finished.  He  paid  a good  deal  of  attention 
to  the  design  of  his  draperies,  as  the  wings  at  Paris  and  Madrid 
may  be  cited  to  show.  The  faces  of  his  women  are  attractive. 
Landscape  was  not  his  forte  and  is  reduced  to  unimportance  in 
his  backgrounds. 

We  luckily  possess  two  pictures  of  Provost’s  late  period 
which  can  be  dated,  the  Deipara  Virgo  of  1524  at  Petrograd  and 
the  Last  Judgment  of  1525  at  Bruges.  The  latter  was  painted 
for  the  Town  Hall  and  is  the  only  work  documentarily  recorded 
as  by  him.  The  whole  superstructure  of  attributions  has  been 
cleverly  erected  on  this  simple  foundation.  In  both  pictures  the 
influence  of  contemporary  Antwerp  painters  is  so  apparent  that 
even  without  Diirer’s  record  we  could  have  known  that  Provost 
must  have  made  a stay  of  some  duration  in  that  lively  city  and 
learned  things  there  that  Bruges  could  not  have  taught  him. 
In  the  Deipara  Virgo  the  elaboration  of  feminine  costume,  which 
turned  Antwerp  saintesses  into  fashionable  and  expensive  ladies, 
is  also  visible,  though  without  the  extravagance  beloved  on  the 
Scheldt.  The  subject,  as  Hulin  tells  us,  was  a favourite  one  at 
Bruges  not  only  with  painters  of  the  early  sixteenth  century  but 
also  for  tableaux  vivants.  Thus  he  cites  those  exhibited  on  the 


296 


LATER  BRUGES  ARTISTS 


occasion  of  the  Joyous  Entry  of  Charles  V in  Bruges  in  1520,  when 
the  third  prize  went  to  the  man  who  had  designed  and  furnished 
the  costumes  of  the  actors,  and  notably  those  for  the  Sibyls  and 
Prophets,  who,  as  here,  no  doubt  were  introduced  foretelling  the 
Virgin-Mother.^ 

The  building  up  of  so  intricate  and  artificial  a composition, 
if  at  that  time  it  implied  little  creative  ability,  was  only  attainable 
by  much  learning  and  some  ingenuity.  The  Last  Judgment  is 
Provost’s  most  pretentious  work  and  shows  him  at  his  learnedest. 
He  has  advanced  as  a draughtsman.  The  little  woman  putting 
on  her  celestial  robes  is  a pleasing  vision.  The  large-scale  Heavenly 
Host  makes  the  picture  top-heavy  and  comes  so  low  down  that 
if  a man  in  the  foreground  were  to  stand  up  he  would  knock 
his  head  against  the  clouds.  Angels  blow  out  of  their  trumpets 
the  letters  of  the  calls  to  elect  and  damned  like  peas  out  of  a pea- 
shooter. It  is  all  entirely  artificial  and  devoid  of  the  dramatic 
quality  without  which  such  a subject  is  meaningless,  but  it  unites  in 
a clever  mosaic,  like  the  well-fitted  bits  of  a jigsaw  puzzle,  all  the 
expected  elements  and  depicts  them  in  competent  fashion.  We  may 
thus  take  leave  of  Provost  with  some  respect  but  with  little  regret. 

Brief  mention  in  passing  may  be  given  to  another  Bruges  artist 
who  stands  in  Provost’s  neighbourhood.  He  painted  a seated 
round-faced  Virgin  with  two  Saints  which  is  in  the  Ufifizi  (No.  666), 
a second-rate  imitation  of  Memling.  He  likewise  painted  a Virgin 
on  the  crescent  moon  which  was  in  the  Willett  Collection.^  Three- 
quarters  of  that  picture  are  filled  with  the  heavenly  host  among 
clouds,  quite  uninteresting,  but  the  lowest  quarter  contains  one  of 
the  most  beautiful  landscapes  painted  at  that  time ; if  it  stood 

1 An  important  and  earlier  pieture  of  the  same  subject,  by  which  however  Provost 
seems  to  have  been  uninfluenced,  is  a triptych  in  the  Church  of  St.  James  at  Bruges. 
The  figures  on  the  central  panel  are  half-lengths.  The  unidentified  painter  is  known  as 
the  Master  of  the  Holy  Blood.  An  artist  of  some  merit,  he  derives  his  name  from  a 
Descent  from  the  Cross,  painted  about  1519,  and  presented,  probably  by  Jan  van  der 
Straeten  in  that  year,  to  the  Confraternity  of  the  Holy  Blood.  Four  pictures  by  him  were 
exhibited  at  the  Bruges  Exhibition  in  1902,  and  others  are  mentioned  in  Hulin’s  Catalogue 
Critique  of  that  exhibition.  There  is  a list  of  his  works  in  Friedlander’s  volume  on  the 
Berlin  Loan  Exhibition  of  Renaissance  Art  (1898),  p.  20.  He  flourished  at  Bruges  about 
1510-25,  but  worked  under  the  influence  of  Massys  and  Joos  van  Cleeve,  to  the  latter 
of  whom  some  of  his  pictures  have  been  attributed.  He  was  a dull  painter. 

^ Bruges  Exhibition  (1902),  No.  208. 


JAN  VAN  EECKELE 


297 


alone  its  merit  would  have  reeeived  more  notiee.  The  view  is 
of  a river  passing  near  some  cottages,  under  a bridge,  and  then 
meandering  through  fields  and  round  the  base  of  a castle-crowned 
cliff  to  vanish  in  a wooded  and  hilly  distance.  The  colouring  is 
rich,  the  composition  well  chosen,  and  the  effect  of  light  striking 
low  very  well  rendered.  It  is  possible  that  the  painter  of  this  view 
was  a landscapist  pure  and  simple,  and  that  he  was  employed  as 
such  by  the  anonymous  and  inferior  figure-painter  to  whom  the 
rest  of  the  picture  is  due. 

A second-rate  but  not  uninteresting  Bruges  artist  who  was  a 
follower,  if  not  a pupil,  of  John  Provost  is  known  to  us  from  two 
pictures.  By  his  signed  initials  he  can  scarcely  have  been  other 
than  a recorded  member  of  the  Bruges  Guild,  Jan  van  Eeckele. 
Coming  from  elsewhere,  he  joined  the  guild  in  1534,  filled  various 
offices  in  it,  and  died  in  or  soon  after  1561.  His  son  became  a 
master-painter  in  1548,  so  that  the  father  may  have  been  born 
about  1500  or  before.  Van  Mander  mentions  a Bruges  painter 
under  the  name  of  Hans  Vereycke,  probably  the  same  man.  The 
form  of  the  Christian  name,  like  Memling’s,  suggests  that  he  was 
a German.  He  was  nicknamed  Klein  Hansken.  Apparently 
he  is  not  to  be  confused  with  another  Cleen  Hansken,  who  was 
Hans  van  der  Elburcht,  a follower  of  Patinir,  of  whom  more 
hereafter.  The  picture  which  shows  Jan  van  Eeckele  imitating 
Provost  is  a Madonna  with  St.  Bernard  in  Tournay  Museum. 
In  the  background  are  other  incidents  in  the  Saint’s  legend.  Hulin 
thinks  it  may  be  dated  far  along  toward  the  middle  of  the  six- 
teenth century,  a remarkable  survival  of  fifteenth  century  forms 
and  traditions.  Nothing  is  more  conservative  than  pious  emotion. 
There  are  plenty  of  English  Churchmen  to-day  who  are  not  happy 
worshipping  except  in  a Gothic  church.  That  was  why  the 
Liverpool  public  when  they  decided  in  recent  years  to  build  a big 
cathedral  decreed  that  it  must  be  in  the  Gothic  style.  Conserva- 
tively pious  folk  in  the  sixteenth  century  similarly  hung  on  to  the 
old  types  of  religious  picture  and  gave  employment  to  conservative 
artists.  The  Spanish  market,  so  important  to  Netherlands  painters 
at  this  time,  expressed  a similar  demand.  The  only  other  known 
picture  initialled  by  Van  Eeckele  is  a half-length  Mater  Dolorosa 
in  Bruges  Cathedral.  A woodcut  of  the  same  design  and  the 


298 


LATER  BRUGES  ARTISTS 


accompanying  text  printed  by  Gerard  Leeu  at  Antwerp  in  1492 
in  a “ Seven  droefheyden  O.L.V.,”  and  a copy  of  the  same  cut 
printed  by  Janszoen  at  Leyden  in  1500  in  a “ Leven  O.L.V.,” 
prove  that  Van  Eeckele’s  picture  repeated  the  design  of  an  original 
in  the  church  of  Ara  Coeli  at  Rome,  whereof  there  were  other  copies 
at  Abbenbroek  and  Romerswale  in  Zealand.  There  is  another  eopy 
with  the  addition  of  angels  overhead  at  Munich  by  Quentin 
Massys’  follower,  the  Master  of  the  Manzi  Magdalen  (No.  105). 
They  show  the  influence  of  Quentin  Massys,  but  it  does  not  follow 
that  they  are,  as  has  been  claimed,  copies  of  a lost  copy  made  by 
him,  of  which  we  have  no  record.  An  Italian  version  of  the 
same  Roman  original  was  in  Charles  Butler’s  Collection. ‘ 

It  will  be  convenient  at  this  point  to  deal  summarily  with  a 
few  anonymous  Bniges  pictures  which  cannot  be  entirely  passed 
over.  There  is,  for  instance,  that  Consecration  of  a Bishop  which 
used  to  masquerade  as  the  Conseeration  of  Thomas  a Becket  by 
John  van  Eyck,  on  the  basis  of  a forged  inseription.‘  Though 
the  picture  is  not  by  or  of  the  period  of  the  Van  Eycks,  it  was 
painted  by  a good  artist  about  the  year  1500  or  later.  For  a time 
he  was  thought  to  have  been  the  young  Mabuse,  but  that  idea  is 
given  up.  Another  pieture  by  the  same  hand,  likewise  at  Chats- 
worth,  depicts  an  episode  in  the  life  of  some  Benedictine  saint. 
The  composition  of  the  crowd  is  in  both  cases  rather  primitive,  a 
perspective  of  tonsured  crowns.  On  the  other  hand,  the  draperies 
are  well  designed,  and  some  of  the  older  faces  are  dignified  and 
moderately  expressive.  The  open-air  baekground  is  curiously 
Italian,  even  specifically  Venetian  in  its  openness  and  the  type 
of  figures  that  animate  it ; one  can  also  imagine  a Venetian 
reminiscence  in  the  palace  arehiteeture.  Weale  suspected  that  the 
painter  had  some  connexion  with  England — I know  not  on  what 
grounds. 

To  Mr.  R.  C.  Sutton-Nelthorpe  belongs  a picture  of  St.  Francis 
abandoning  his  father,  whieh  has  puzzled  all  the  critics.  Hulin 
hoped,  rather  than  believed,  that  it  might  be  by  John  Provost, 
but  this  hope  has  been  abandoned.  It  dates  from  about  1520. 
St.  Franeis  is  giving  his  clothes  to  his  father,  who  seems  quite  eager 

' Reproduced  in  the  Art  Journal,  November  1884,  p.  336. 

* How  the  forgery  was  made  is  described  in  the  Burlington  Magazine,  March  1907. 


VARIOUS  PICTURES 


299 


to  get  them.  A handsomely  vestmented  Bishop  extends  a wing 
of  his  cope  over  the  naked  lad.  If  he  and  another  bystander  are 
putting  their  fingers  to  their  eyes  to  avoid  seeing  his  nakedness 
they  do  it  in  a most  ineffective  manner  ; but  perhaps  they  are 
intercepting  tears,  equally  ineffectively.  For  all  that  the  picture 
is  a good  one,  well  composed  with  figures  in  natural  momentary 
positions  and  variety  of  character  in  the  faces. 

An  important-looking  triptych  which  belonged  to  Messrs. 
Durlacher  and  was  shown  at  the  Diisseldorf  Exhibition  in  1904 
(No.  154)  has  been  no  less  of  a problem.  Friedlander  wrote  about 
it  at  length,'  finding  in  it  influences  from  Hugo  van  der  Goes, 
Memling,  and  Gerard  David,  and  such  resemblances  to  the  work  of 
Isenbrant  as  to  make  him  suspect  that  it  might  be  an  early  work 
by  him.  As  always  happens  when  anything  proves  too  tough  a 
nut  for  the  critics  to  crack,  they  presently  turn  and  abuse  it. 
The  latest  writer  to  tackle  it  has  done  so,  and  now  we  are  told 
it  is  a very  poor  affair.  In  reality  it  is  an  exeellent  work  by  an 
immature  artist  of  the  later  Bruges  sehool  who  in  the  Adoration 
of  the  Magi  has  remembered  David,  in  the  Presentation  Memling. 
The  basket  on  the  ground  in  the  Nativity  is  the  same  that  we  find 
in  the  studio  replica  (in  the  Pablo  Bosch  Collection)  of  Gerard 
David’s  Stoop  Madonna.  Patinir  had  a basket  rather  like  it, 
but  not  the  same  one.  I suspect  the  painter  of  the  Durlacher 
triptych  to  have  been  the  same  assistant  in  David’s  studio  to 
whose  hand  the  Pablo  Bosch  picture  is  due.  Both  works  are 
assigned  roughly  to  about  the  year  1515. 

An  original  and  entertaining  picture  belongs  to  Count  de 
Limburg-Stirum  and  used  to  be  at  the  Chateau  de  Rumbeke  near 
Roulers,  to  which  indeed  it  most  essentially  belonged,  for  it  depicts 
a scene  in  the  park  of  that  chateau,  and  the  building  itself  appears 
in  the  background,  as  it  remained  almost  unaltered  till  the  War. 
Only  the  spire  upon  the  tower  was  gone.  Whether  the  building 
still  survives,  I know  not.  When  shown  at  the  Bruges  Exhibition 
(No.  273)  the  orthodox  Catholics  who  controlled  that  admirable 
show  permitted  the  picture  to  be  described  as  “ Un  fete  de  famille 
en  plein  air.”  The  learned  Hulin  was  able  to  identify  the  persons 
as  belonging  to  the  Thiennes  family  and  the  date  as  approximately 

1 Jahrbuch  Pt.  Kss.,  1904,  p.  114. 


300 


LATER  BRUGES  ARTISTS 


1535,  but  he  did  not  state,  what  Avas  pointed  out  to  me  by  the  late 
M.  Henri  Hymans,  that  the  assemblage  is  obviously  a Protestant 
meeting,  and  that  is  why  they  are  singing  hymns  and  some  of 
them  are  kneeling.  One  of  the  servants  seems  much  agitated  by 
the  arrival  in  the  background  of  a cavalcade  and  cartload  of  visitors 
just  driving  up  to  the  chateau.  The  admirable  landscape  shows 
the  continuing  influence  of  Gerard  David.  Apart  from  its  agree- 
able artistic  quality,  the  picture  is  an  interesting  document  of  social 
history.  It  will  be  a pity  if  it  also  has  been  swallowed  up  by 
the  War. 

A single  picture  is  authentically  recorded  as  the  work  of  a 
Bruges  artist  named  Albert  Cornells.  It  is  a Coronation  of  the 
Virgin  painted  between  1517  and  1522  and  hangs  in  the  church  of 
St.  James  at  Bruges.  Cornells  is  mentioned  in  1513  as  a burgher 
of  Bruges  and  in  1518  as  a guild-officer.  In  the  years  from  1515 
to  1530  he  is  recorded  as  selling  pictures  in  the  half-yearly  markets. 
In  1532  he  died.  The  photographic  translation  of  his  picture  into 
black  and  white  gives  an  unfairly  favourable  impression  of  it, 
for  the  colouring  has  a cheap  and  poor  appearance.  It  is  one  of 
the  most  crowded  works  of  the  school,  and  the  great  multitude 
of  figures  are  grouped  together  not  unskilfully.  Bodenhausen 
throws  doubt  upon  the  degree  of  Cornells’  responsibility  for  it 
and  refuses  to  draw  from  it  many  inferences  as  to  his  style. 
The  influence  of  Gerard  David  is  visible  enough,  but  more  still 
are  we  reminded  of  the  work  and  even  the  hand  of  Ambrosius 
Benson,  a painter  resident  and  very  active  at  Bruges  for  several 
years.  It  has  likewise  been  suggested  that  Isenbrant  may  have 
had  a hand  in  the  painting.  Cornells  undertook  to  paint  all  the 
nude  and  other  principal  parts  with  his  own  hand,  but  from  the 
records  of  a lawsuit  ’ we  learn  that  his  actual  accomplishment  of 
a proper  share  of  the  work  was  disputed.  The  Court  held  other- 
wise, so  the  doubt  which  has  been  thrown  upon  his  substantial 
responsibility  for  the  picture  seems  groundless. 

Adrian  Isenbrant  was  a prominent  Bruges  painter  between 
the  years  1510  and  1551  ; indeed,  after  Gerard  David  he  seems 
to  have  been  the  leading  artist  in  the  city.  He  was  not  educated 
there,  but  came  from  somewhere  else  and  bought  the  freedom  of 
1 Le  Beffroi,  i,  p.  18. 


ISENBRANT 


301 


the  local  painters’  guild  in  the  year  above  mentioned.  He  soon 
rose  to  a good  position  in  it,  and  filled  various  offices  at  different 
times  between  1515  and  1548.  In  July  1551  he  died.  When 
such  a multitude  of  obviously  Bruges  School  pictures  of  the  first 
half  of  the  sixteenth  century  have  survived  it  is  practically  certain 
that  among  them  must  be  works  by  a painter  so  prominent  and  so 
long  active.  The  co-operative  investigations  of  many  students 
have  grouped  together  as  the  work  of  a single  artist  a large  number 
of  pictures,  none  of  them  signed,  none  attached  by  any  old  document 
to  a named  painter,  but  all  produced  within  the  period  of  Isenbrant’s 
recorded  activity.  The  first  name  suggested  for  their  author 
was  that  of  Jan  Mostaert,  but  the  known  facts  of  his  life  were  at 
variance  with  the  implications  of  the  pictures  themselves.  To 
make  a long  story  short,  only  what  is  known  of  Isenbrant  does 
satisfy  them,  and  they  are  now  ascribed  to  him  by  general  consent, 
though  actual  proof  that  he  painted  any  one  of  them  has  not 
yet  been  discovered. 

The  two  largest  pictures  thus  attributed  to  the  Master  we 
have  now  to  consider  were  triptychs,  one  of  1518  at  St.  Mary’s, 
Liibeck,  the  other  of  about  1520  at  Grancey-le-Chateau  (Cote  d’Or). 
I have  not  seen  the  Liibeck  picture  for  forty  years,  and  my  memory 
of  it  is  very  dim ; the  Grancey-le-Chateau  triptych  I have  never 
seen  at  all.  To  judge  from  rather  indifferent  photographs  neither 
of  them  is  a picture  that  would  long  hold  the  attention  of  any 
spectator  who  was  not  an  art-historian.  Friedlander,  I believe, 
deprived  Isenbrant  of  the  Liibeck  altarpiece  and  ascribed  it  to  an 
anonymous  painter  of  1518,  to  whom  also  he  attributed  certain 
other  works.  Later  on  he  found  a place  for  that  artist  among  his 
Antwerp  Mannerists,  with  whom  we  shall  presently  deal.  Whether 
the  Grancey  triptych  should  be  similarly  handled  I know  not. 
The  head  of  one  of  the  Apostles  in  it  is  said  to  be  a fine  portrait  of 
David  himself  in  advanced  years  ; it  is  considered  the  finest  and 
most  carefully  painted  head  by  Isenbrant.  If  that  is  true  it  only 
confirms  what  his  other  pictures  so  frequently  indicate — ^the  close- 
ness of  his  relation  to  David,  whose  assistant  he  may  well  have 
been  for  several  years.  Some  of  his  paintings,  such  as  the  Munich 
and  Arco- Valley  examples  of  the  Virgo  inter  Virgines,  appear  to  be 
copied  from  originals  by  David  ; others  may  have  been  done  from 
21 


302 


LATER  BRUGES  ARTISTS 


that  master’s  designs.  Nor  was  it  only  David  that  Isenbrant 
copied.  There  is  in  the  Kaufmann  Collection  a repetition  of  the 
central  panel  of  the  well-known  little  triptych  by  Mabuse  now 
at  Palermo,  which  shows  a close  but  not  slavish  imitation  of 
the  original.  He  also  painted  a separate  imitation  of  the  Adam 
and  Eve  on  the  outside  of  the  wings  ; the  picture  was  in  the 
Emden  Collection  (No.  53).  In  other  cases  he  borrowed  from  the 
engravings  of  Martin  Schongauer  and  Diirer,  and  he  put  under 
contribution  some  of  the  popular  paintings  of  his  Netherlandish 
predecessors.  In  all  this  he  was  merely  carrying  on  the  imitative 
habit  of  his  school  and  providing  the  kind  of  pictures  his  patrons 
desired. 

There  is  at  Munich  a pretty  Virgin  and  Child  in  a landscape, 
one  of  those  numerous  Rests  by  the  Way  on  the  Flight  into  Egypt 
then  so  popular.*  They  gave  opportunity  for  the  introduction 
of  wide  extending  landscapes  with  entertaining  distances  and  inci- 
dents, and  enabled  a painting  of  a religious  subject  to  be  endowed 
with  a great  deal  of  mundane  charm.  The  Virgin  and  Child  are 
identical  in  design  with  those  in  the  versions  of  the  Virgo  inter 
Virgines  above  mentioned.  Joseph  in  the  background  knocking 
dates  off  what  is  intended  for  a date-palm  had  already  appeared 
exactly  thus  in  a Rest  by  David  which  was  in  the  Kann  Collection. 
Even  the  landscape  was  evidently  not  of  Isenbrant’s  invention, 
and  the  whole  picture  may  well  have  been  designed  by  or  even 
copied  after  David.  The  kind  of  landscape  Isenbrant  designed 
when  left  to  his  own  resources  is  exemplified  in  the  Mary  Magdalen 
praying  in  the  (very  fertile)  desert  which  was  in  the  De  Somzee 
Collection.  It  is  characterized  by  a number  of  jutting  rocks  that 
look  like  the  lobes  of  great  cactus  plants,  with  domed  trees  among 
them,  cottages  and  castles  dotted  about,  and  villages  in  the  remoter 
distance.  No  photograph  can  give  any  idea  of  the  charm  of  the 
picture ; that  resides  in  its  rich  and  glowing  colour.  Equally 
dependent  upon  the  same  qualities  are  the  two  wings  with  figures 
of  saints  from  the  same  collection.  Nothing  could  be  more  dull 
or  uninspired  than  the  figures  themselves — ^the  straight-legged, 

* In  Canterbury  Museum  is  a pretty  “ Rest  by  the  Way  ” by  Isenbrant,  with  a Virgin 
dressed  in  blue,  seated  in  a landscape.  In  the  background  are  worshippers  adoring  a 
statue  of  Neptune.  The  picture  is  in  good  condition. 


ISENBRANT 


303 


spindle-shanked  John  Baptist  and  the  mild  Jerome.  But  the 
latter’s  fine  red  robe  against  the  green  background  is  a joy  to  look 
upon. 

A more  advanced  work  of  the  type  of  the  Magdalen  is  a triptych, 
on  one  of  the  wings  of  which  she  again  appears.  It  was  in  the 
R.  Kann  Collection.  Jerome  in  Penitence  is  the  subject  of  the  central 
panel.  Why  the  religious  folk  of  that  time  were  so  devoted  to 
St.  Jerome  is  doubtless  known,  but  the  explanation  has  not  reached 
me.  He  was  as  popular  with  Italian  and  especially  with  Venetian 
painters  as  with  Netherlanders.  Some  of  Bellini’s  pupils  and  certain 
Bruges  painters  approximate  rather  closely  in  style  when  painting 
this  Saint.  Several  of  these  penitent  Jeromes  are  attributed  to 
Isenbrant  ‘ and  all  are  charming  pictures,  but  in  them  also  our 
artist  rests  upon  David,  who  set  the  type  he  was  content  to  follow. 
This  triptych  and  another  rather  smaller  one,  which  belonged  to 
my  late  friend  Dr.  Lippmann  and  was  his  particular  pride,  are 
examples  of  the  best  that  Isenbrant  could  accomplish.  They  are 
painted  with  exceeding  fineness  and  brilliancy.  They  delight  the 
eye  the  moment  it  rests  upon  them.  There  is  an  individual 
softness  and  grace  about  the  little  figures  that  was  Isenbrant’s 
own.  They  have  an  appearance  of  unusual  finish  and  consequent 
preciousness,  as  though  a very  skilful  craftsman  had  devoted  much 
time  to  them.  This  is  true  even  of  the  grisaille  subjects  on  the 
outside  of  the  Lippmann  wings.  The  Netherlands  produced  few 
sweeter  figures  than  that  of  the  Virgin  in  this  Visitation.  Such  a 
little  altar-piece  was  perfectly  adapted  for  the  oratory  of  some 
young  and  pious  but  also  well-to-do  lady  of  its  day.  The  archi- 
tecture of  the  niches  behind  these  grisailles  has  an  obvious  connexion 
with  that  in  the  Palermo  Mabuse,  which  Isenbrant  must  have 
copied  about  this  time. 

Of  like  charm  but  somewhat  later  date  are  two  much  admired 
pictures  in  the  Northbrook  Collection : a Virgin  seated  in  a 
handsomely  sculptured  and  inlaid  marble  niche  of  Renaissance 
character,  and  a Virgin  appearing  above  the  altar  to  St.  Ildephonso 
in  a church  of  wildly  fantastic  architecture.  With  these  we  may 
also  group  a mass  of  St.  Gregory  in  a similar  church — a picture 

^ For  example,  one  in  the  Fetis  sale  (1909),  No.  106,  and  one  in  the  J.  G.  Johnson 
Collection,  No.  357. 


304 


LATER  BRUGES  ARTISTS 


which  passed  through  the  hands  of  Messrs.  Agnew.  It  would 
be  easy  to  have  a surfeit  of  such  sweets  as  the  Northbrook  Madonna. 
It  is  very  pretty,  but  no  one  could  call  such  art  great.  It  is  of 
the  sugar-candy  of  pictures.  There  is  no  religious  emotion  in  it, 
but  only  a religious  convention.  A Buddhist  would  not  discover 
that  it  was  a religious  painting  at  all,  though  the  colouring  pleases 
the  universal  human  eye.  As  for  the  sculptured  baekground, 
that  must  have  been  borrowed  from  someone.  It  is  not  Isenbrant’s 
invention.  Nor  is  it  merely  the  suggestion  of  it  that  came  from 
Italy  ; some  Italian  must  have  designed  it.  Architecture  invented 
by  Isenbrant,  as  in  the  St.  Ildefonso,  is  wild  stuff — a mixture  of 
extravagant  Renaissance  and  Gothic  forms,  impossibly  combined. 
He  had  no  understanding  of  the  Renaissance  spirit  in  arehitecture 
or  of  its  root  in  a revolt  against  the  unstructural  over-elaboration 
of  late  Gothic.  As  long  as  forms  were  complicated  and  combina- 
tions novel,  that  was  enough  for  Isenbrant  and  his  patrons.  In 
his  mind,  however,  they  were  not  thought  of  as  architectural,  but 
merely  as  decorative  pietorial  elements  which  he  could  mingle 
together  and  patch  about  among  his  graceful  figures  to  produce 
a decorative  painted  whole.  It  must  be  admitted  that,  at  his 
best,  he  thus  attained  some  charming  results. 

The  Mass  of  St.  Gregory*  indieates  that  Isenbrant  did  not 
remain  unaffected  by  the  developments  that  went  forward  at 
Antwerp  and  other  art  centres  around  him.  Here  the  people 
are  all  agitated  by  emotion  which  they  have  to  express  by  gesture, 
by  the  twisting  about  of  their  draperies,  turning  of  the  head,  and 
other  departures  from  the  restraint  and  dignity  of  the  fifteenth 
century  school.  Moreover,  the  actual  paint  is  made  as  it  were  to 
sparkle  with  bright  touches  on  vestments,  mitres,  and  metallic 
adjuncts.  It  is  all  of  a piece  with  the  agitated  architecture,  but 
the  result  is  decorative  and  in  its  way  delightful. 

An  unusually  large-scale  pair  of  three-quarter  lengths  of  Christ 
as  the  Man  of  Sorrows  and  the  Virgin  as  Mater  Dolorosa,  united  on 
a single  panel,  are  in  New  York  Museum.  They  show  Isenbrant 
in  his  most  pretentious  and  least  charming  mood.  They  are 
theatrical,  artificial,  unconvincing.  The  nobility  which  Van  Eyck 
infused  into  the  great  figures  of  the  Ghent  altar-piece  is  absent 

* I know  the  picture  only  from  a photograph  kindly  given  to  me  by  Messrs.  Agnew. 


ISENBRANT 


305 


here.  The  spirit  which  created  those  imposing  manifestations 
was  gone  from  the  earth.  Nothing  remained  but  a formula  which 
Isenbrant  employed  with  technical  dexterity  and  without  a suspicion 
of  its  emptiness  in  his  hands.  He  had  already,  a few  years  before 
(say  about  1530),  painted  a memorial  diptych,  half  of  which,  with 
a seated  Mater  Dolorosa,  it  still  in  Notre  Dame  at  Bruges — a con- 
fused and  unsatisfactory  composition.  The  Virgin  sits  in  not 
unpathetic  grief  upon  an  ill-proportioned  carved  throne  ; but  she 
loses  all  dignity  and  the  picture  all  unity  of  effect  by  the  ill-adjusted 
paintings  of  various  incidents  in  the  Passion  on  the  wall  behind 
her,  which  distract  the  attention  and  add  nothing  to  the  general 
effect. 

Apart  from  the  above-mentioned  portrait  head  of  David, 
Isenbrant  is  not  credited  with  eminence  as  a portrait-painter. 
A half-length  of  St.  Luke  holding  a Madonna-panel  is  thought 
to  be  a likeness  of  himself.  The  face  matches  the  attribution. 
It  is  that  of  a mild  and  inefficient  Dante,  lacking  all  tragic  emotion. 
His  pursed-up,  proper  lips,  his  large  dull  eyes,  his  unlined  face, 
belong  to  a quiet,  rather  pedantic  person.  He  has  sensitive  hands 
which  might  well  be  skilful.  He  would  be  a quiet,  virtuous, 
painstaking,  even  meticulous  person,  but  with  nothing  great 
about  him.  In  the  Doria  Gallery  and  elsewhere  are  half-length 
pictures  of  little  ladies,  as  saints,  attributed  to  him,  some  of 
which  are  probably  portraits.  They  lack  individuality.  They 
are  all  of  a kind.  Isenbrant  was  not  the  only  painter  of  such  half- 
lengths,  nor  was  he  the  inventor  of  the  type,  which  became  very 
fashionable.  It  is  associated  prominently  with  the  unidentified 
Brussels  artist  named  the  Master  of  the  Half-lengths,  and  several 
other  painters  turned  out  examples  of  the  type,  which  seems  to 
have  been  specially  popular  in  France. 

Isenbrant,  in  his  turn,  like  David,  was  at  the  head  of  a manu- 
factory of  pictures,  and  supplied  a number  for  export,  especially 
to  Spain.  His  assistants  repeated  his  designs  and  imitated  his 
style.  Evidently  the  products  of  the  workshop  were  popular. 
Pictures  attributable  to  it  rather  than  to  him  are  numerous. 
In  some  his  hand  may  have  done  a share  of  the  work  ; in  others 
only  his  design  is  discoverable.  Others,  again,  are  mere  imitations. 
We  need  not  linger  over  such  an  output.  Even  the  mere  studio 


306 


LATER  BRUGES  ARTISTS 


pictures  often  have  a certain  charm,  but  it  is  one  inherited  from 
the  past — a fading  charm,  essentially  decadent. 

Other  artists  who  worked  at  Bruges  during  the  sixteenth 
century  must  receive  our  brief  attention  before  we  are  free  to 
turn  to  the  work  of  greater  men  elsewhere.  They  are  Lancelot 
Blondeel,  Peter  Claeissins  the  Elder,  and  Peter  Pourbus.  What 
is  known  of  the  first-mentioned  was  put  together  by  Mr.  Weale 
and  published  in  the  numbers  of  the  Burlington  Magazine  of 
November  and  December  1908,  to  which  the  reader  is  referred  for 
all  details.  Blondeel  was  born  at  Poperinghe  in  West  Flanders 
in  1496.  He  started  life  as  a mason,  but  was  admitted  a master- 
painter  at  Bruges  in  1519.  He  married,  served  offices  in  his 
guild,  and  in  1561  he  died.  His  most  outstanding  work  is  not  a 
painting  but  an  elaborately  carved  chimneypiece,  which  he 
designed  ^ in  1528  for  the  Council  Chamber  of  the  Hotel  of  the 
Liberty  of  Bruges,  now  the  court-room  of  the  Palais  de  JTustice.  * 
It  was  finished  in  1532.  Blondeel  won  the  order  after  a compe- 
tition, and  was  then  sent  to  other  towns  to  consult  with  sculptors 
and  experts,  among  whom  the  painter  Mabuse  is  mentioned. 
The  fireplaee  and  mantelpiece  were  of  black  marble  and  alabaster, 
the  overmantel  and  ceiling  of  oak.  The  alabaster  mantelpiece 
was  designed  and  sculptured  by  Guy  Beaugrant,  who  also  carved 
the  five  large  oak  figures.  The  heraldry  was  approved  by  Toison 
d’or.  The  overmantel  was  intended  to  commemorate  the  victory 
of  Pavia  and  Treaty  of  Madrid  (1526).  The  central  oak  figure  is 
Charles  V,  with  his  parents  on  his  right  hand  and  his  grand- 
parents, Ferdinand  and  Isabella,  on  his  left.  A throne,  numerous 
cherubs,  portrait  medallions,  and  many  coats-of-arms  fill  the 
remainder  of  this  somewhat  overburdened  composition.  It 
matches  the  exuberant  taste  of  the  day,  which  Blondeel 
thoroughly  relished.  All  his  paintings  that  have  come  down  to 
us  express  the  same  extravagance.  He  turned  his  back  on  the 
old  traditions  and  belonged  heart  and  soul  to  the  new  world. 
He  inherited  the  skill  of  hand  and  power  of  draughtsmanship 
which  had  been  developed  by  the  old  masters,  but  none  of  their 
restraint.  Where  he  got  his  inspiration  is  obvious.  It  was 
from  Italy.  Even  if  the  picture  in  Tournay  Cathedral  is  not 

1 Apparently  also  the  ceiling. 


PLATE  XV 


2.  QUENTIN  MASSYS.  COLL.  C.  B.  O.  CLARKE, 
p.  323. 


1.  FLE.AIISIT  SCHOOL  (1535).  .A  PROTESTANT 
.MEETING.  RU.MBEKE.— p.  299. 


3.  ISENBRANT.  ST.  LUKE.  .MESSRS. 
COLN.AGHI— p.  305. 


4.  LANCELOT  BLONDEEL.  DECORATION  IN 
THE  PALAIS  DE  JUSTICE,  BRUGES.— p.  306. 


[To  face  page  306. 


. -"'-wm;. 


- ' i T'  ^ 


’ 


m 


'tte 

p2-^  V-. 
^-.<J 


LANCELOT  BLONDEEL 


307 


by  him  it  shows  in  an  advanced  form  the  same  influx  of  Italian 
influence.  It  is,  however,  not  the  spirit  of  Italy  that  has  been 
caught,  but  merely  the  forms.  A prototype  for  each  of  them 
could  be  cited  were  it  worth  while.  Blondeel  was  essentially  a 
decorator.  He  was  often  employed  to  design  decorative  statues, 
ironwork,  tapestries,  house-fronts,  carved  doors,  candlesticks,  and 
whatever  was  needed  of  an  expensive  sort.  He  also  designed 
woodcuts,  but  none  are  known. 

Four  decorative  banners,  recorded  as  painted  by  him  for  various 
corporations,  still  exist.  They  depict  religious  subjects  or  per- 
sonages framed  in  or  projected  against  such  a mass  of  intricate 
decoration  as  to  be  almost  overwhelmed  by  it.  One  cannot  deny 
that  the  work  is  clever.  When  fresh  it  may  have  been  brilliant  and 
effective.  The  ornamental  parts  are  done  in  brown  on  a gold  ground. 
They  can  hardly  be  called  even  remotely  architectural,  but  resemble 
intricate  metal-work  of  a highly  fanciful  character.  A single 
detail  cited  by  Weale  shows  where  the  artist  sought  suggestions. 
In  the  banner  of  the  Painters  and  Saddlers  which  is  in  St.  Saviour’s 
at  Bruges,  dated  1545,  the  capitals  of  the  pilasters  of  the  Virgin’s 
throne  agree  with  those  in  the  basilica  of  Nerva  at  Rome,  and  must 
have  been  copied  from  the  Flemish  edition  (published  in  1539)  of 
Serlio’s  treatise  on  architecture.  The  Virgin  and  Child  are  no 
less  obviously  of  Italian  derivation.  Yet,  for  all  this  Italianizing 
the  spirit  remains  late  Gothic — Gothic  gone  wild  or  over-ripe. 
Though  locally  novel  it  is  decadent  art,  which  led  ultimately 
nowhither.  We  shall  meet  with  other  artists  similarly  affected 
and  need  not  longer  delay  over  this  one,  but  we  cannot  quit  him 
without  mentioning  that  in  1550  he  and  Scorel  were  charged  with 
the  perilous  task  of  restoring  the  great  Ghent  altar-piece  of  the 
brothers  Van  Eyck. 

Peter  Claeissins  the  Elder  was  neither  the  first  nor  the  last 
artist  of  his  family,  for  there  was  a Peter  Claeis  living  and  working 
at  Bruges  before  him.  The  Peter  ‘ with  whom  we  are  concerned 
was  60  years  old  when  he  signed  his  own  portrait  (if  it  be  his 
own  portrait)  in  1560.  He  beeame  a master- painter  in  the 
Bruges  Guild  in  1530.  In  1544  he  joined  the  Booksellers’  Guild 
as  an  illuminator.  He  was  still  working  in  1553.  Three  of  his 

1 See  Weale  in  the  Burlington  Mag.,  July  1911,  p.  198. 


308 


LATER  BRUGES  ARTISTS 


sons  were  likewise  painters,  Giles,  Anthony,  and  Peter  by  name. 
Pietures  by  all  of  them  are  known.  Of  the  portrait  above 
mentioned  two  versions  exist : one  in  Christiania  Gallery,  the  other 
in  the  Cook  Collection  at  Richmond.  They  are  bust  portraits, 
the  former  signed  with  the  painter’s  full  name,  but  it  does  not  look 
like  a man  60  years  of  age. 

An  early  work,  marked  with  his  monogram,*  which  belongs 
or  belonged  to  Mr.  Haest  of  Antwerp,  is  a repetition  of  that  old 
type  of  the  Virgin  embracing  the  Child  which  Winkler  believes 
to  have  been  invented  by  Roger.  Numerous  half-length  examples 
of  this  composition  emanated  from  Bruges  in  the  first  half  of  the 
sixteenth  century,  and  they  may  have  been  manufactured  in 
Claeissins’  studio,  though  one  at  any  rate  (in  the  M.  J.  Rikoff  Coll.) 
is  attributed  to  Isenbrant  and  must  have  been  painted  in  his 
entourage.  Thus  Claeissins  was  among  the  last  artists  at  Bruges 
to  hang  on  to  the  old  school.  If  a Virgin’s  head  in  the  Louvre 
(No.  1587)  is  also  his  it  confirms  the  same  tendency.  But  he  could 
not  escape  the  influences  of  his  day,  however  little  he  was  suited 
to  adopt  them.  One  of  his  latest  works,  a Resurrection  of  1573 
in  St.  Saviour’s  at  Bruges,  shows  him  doing  his  best  to  be  fashion- 
able, with  an  Apolline  Christ  and  agitated  soldiers  in  classical 
attitudes — a wretched  picture.  His  portraits  do  him  more 
credit.  Two  of  Abbots  of  the  Dunes  still  exist.^  The  first  is  of 
Antonius  Wydoot,  33rd  Abbot,  ^ a grimly  bigoted  and  rather  stupid 
person,  kneeling  to  some  lost  central  subject  of  a triptych.  The 
garden  that  intervenes  between  him  and  the  remoter  dunes  shows, 
by  classical  columns  and  fountain  with  a nude  figure  of  Hercules, 
that  the  Renaissance  had  begun  to  affect  garden  design.  In  the 
background  on  the  right  we  can  see  a stone  staircase  leading  up 
from  the  marble-lined  pool  to  a formal  rosary,  into  the  secrets 
of  which  we  are  not  permitted  to  penetrate.  The  portrait  of 
the  other  Abbot,  the  36th,  Robert  Holman  by  name,  is  dated 
1571,  and  is  a portrait  pure  and  simple.  This  is  a man  of  more 
intelligence  than  his  predecessor,  but  likewise  dour.  He  sits  in 

^ Bruges  Exhibition  (1902) ; not  in  the  catalogue. 

3 Bruges  Exhibition  (1902),  Nos.  305  and  309. 

® A portrait  of  this  same  abbot  is  on  the  wing  of  a polyptych  in  St.  Giles’  Church, 
Bruges,  painted  by  Peter  Pourbus  in  1564. 


PETER  POURBUS 


309 


an  X-chair  with  a book  of  devotion  open  in  his  hand  and  all 
things  proper  for  an  eeelesiastic  of  position.  Subject  and  treatment 
are  well  matched,  but  it  is  permissible  to  inquire  whether  a likeness 
showing  so  much  insight  can  have  been  by  the  same  hand  as  the 
foregoing.  If  it  be  accepted  as  his  we  shall  be  led  to  conclude 
that  at  the  age  of  71  the  painter  was  still  progressive. 

The  last  Bruges  artist  on  our  list  was  a solider  and  better 
craftsman  than  these  others,  so  that  it  is  a pleasure  to  turn  from 
their  pictures  to  his.  This  Peter  Pourbus,  son  of  John,  was  born 
at  Gouda  in  Holland  a few  years  before  1520.  He  joined  the  Bruges 
Painters’  Guild  in  1543,  and  married  the  daughter  of  Lancelot 
Blondeel.  He  has  been  called  “ the  last  representative  of  the 
School  of  Bruges.”  He  prospered,  lived  in  a fine  house  named 
“ Rome,”  and  had  the  best-arranged  studio  Van  Mander  ever 
saw.  He  died  in  1584,  an  energetic  and  busy  individual,  praised 
by  Van  Mander  as  “ a good  painter  of  figures,  compositions,  and 
portraits  done  from  nature.”  The  same  author  also  records 
that  he  was  a good  “ cosmographer  or  geometrician,”  in  which 
quality  he  painted  on  a great  canvas  a delineation  of  the  region 
called  the  Franc  of  Bruges  as  beheld  from  the  top  of  the  tower 
of  Les  Halles.  A copy  of  it  is  preserved  in  the  town-hall.  Another 
work  imposed  on  him  in  1578  was  to  draw  up  a plan  for  the  defence 
of  the  city,  as  to  which  he  wrote  and  delivered  a “ learned 
memorandum.” 

Van  Mander  declares  that  his  best  work  was  an  altar-piece 
painted  for  his  native  town,  Gouda,  but  this  has  disappeared. 
Several  altar-pieces  and  other  religious  pictures  by  him  exist, 
for  the  most  part  signed  and  dated.  Such  at  Bruges  are  : 


1551  The  Last  Judgment, 
1556  The  Mater  Dolorosa, 
1559  The  Last  Supper, 
1562  The  Last  Supper, 
1564  A Polyptych, 

1574  The  Magi, 

1578  The  Resurrection, 


The  Museum. 
St.  James’. 
The  Cathedral. 
Notre  Dame. 
St.  Giles’. 
Notre  Dame. 
St.  James’. 


We  need  not  delay  over  them  except  to  notice  that  though 
ably  painted  they  possess  the  artificialities  and  affectations  almost 


310 


LATER  BRUGES  ARTISTS 


unavoidable  in  religious  pictures  of  the  date,  and  depend  on  the 
donors’  portraits,  where  such  accompany  them,  for  the  chief 
interest  they  can  offer  to  a modern  eye.  It  is  as  a painter  of 
portraits  that  Peter  Pourbus  is  still  held  in  honour.  Some  of  his 
even  passed  muster  for  years  as  Holbeins.  They  were  far  the 
best  portraits  painted  at  Bruges  in  their  day ; they  did  not, 
however,  draw  their  merit  from  the  traditions  of  the  local  school, 
but  from  the  influences  of  the  contemporary  development  every- 
where going  forward.  Thus  in  the  Mater  Dolorosa  in  St.  James’ 
the  central  panel  is  a modernized  version  of  Isenbrant’s  picture  in 
Notre  Dame  and  gains  nothing  by  its  modernization  ; but  the 
donors  on  the  wings  are  vital  human  beings,  definite  personalities 
carefully  studied,  dressed  in  rich  and  dignified  attire.  As  the  old 
religious  feeling  quitted  the  formative  arts  and  began  to  inspire 
music,  the  interest  in  and  love  of  the  visible  world  and  actual 
people  alive  in  it  increased,  and  this  whether  the  artists  were  or 
were  not  conscious  of  the  change.  However  closely  they  might 
cling  to  traditional  arrangements  and  types  of  sacred  subjects  and 
personages,  they  could  not  escape  from  the  mundane  atmosphere. 
In  endeavouring  to  render  religious  emotion  they  arrived  no  further 
than  a stage  effect.  Their  saints  are  actors,  their  scenes  tableaux 
vivants.  We  may,  therefore,  turn  away  from  the  altar-pieces  of 
Peter  Pourbus  to  admire  his  portraits. 

Friedlander  states  that  he  has  identified  an  early  group  of 
them  belonging  to  the  decade  before  1550,  but  I cannot  find  that 
he  has  recorded  their  names,  and  they  have  not  come  under  my 
observation.  A pair  in  the  Bruges  Museum,  dated  1551,  are  and 
deserve  to  be  well  known.  They  depict  John  Fernagant  and  his 
wife  in  a room  in  a house  at  the  corner  of  the  Rue  Flamande 
and  the  Place  de  la  Grue  at  Bruges.  Through  a window  we  are 
shown  a most  interesting  view  of  the  square  as  it  then  looked,  with 
a huge  crane  worked  by  a treadmill  and  two  brothers  of  the 
Hospital  of  St.  John  watching  the  assemblage  of  various  barrels 
of  wine.  Further  off  is  the  tower  of  the  Chapel  of  St.  John,  and  the 
view  is  closed  on  the  right  by  a detailed  representation  of  the 
painted  fagade  (dated  1542)  of  a merchant’s  house  named  Ten 
Hane  (The  Cock).  We  can  get  from  this  a better  idea  of  how  the 
streets  of  Bruges  looked  in  those  days  than  from  pages  of  descrip- 


PETER  POURBUS 


811 


tions  and  records.  Another  view  of  the  same  lumbering  crane 
with  men  in  its  treadmill  will  be  found  on  the  October  page  of  the 
Calendar  in  a Flemish  manuscript  at  Munich  (No.  23638).  Both 
the  Fernagants  are  young.  It  was  with  older  faces,  especially 
those  of  men,  that  Pourbus  was  most  successful.  The  Vienna 
Gallery  is  best  provided  with  examples  attributed  to  him,  whereof 
the  stern  Don  Pedro  Guzman,  Count  of  Olivarez,  may  be  taken  as 
representative.  He  served  in  the  wars  under  Charles  V and  was 
Majordomo  to  his  successor.  Here  is  no  posing  or  pretence,  no 
pious  attitudinizing,  but  a plain  statement  of  fact.  Thus  this 
man  looked ; thus  he  stood.  He  is  not  beheld  with  any  profound 
vision  or  magical  understanding,  yet  competently  seen  and  set 
down  by  one  who,  craftsmanlike,  understood  the  craft  of  painting. 
There  is  art  in  the  simplicity  of  the  thing  and  an  excellent  convention 
that  in  those  days  was  a common  artistic  property  all  countries 
over  from  Rome  to  Antwerp.  The  face  is  grave  and  strong,  that 
of  a man  wont  to  deal  with  men.  There  is  life  under  the  skin 
and  power  of  movement  implied  in  the  still  attitude.  To  paint 
thus,  though  it  was  the  gift  of  the  day,  was  no  small  accomplish- 
ment. Along  such  lines  development  was  to  lead  to  a Rembrandt 
and  a Hals.  We  can  follow  the  course  of  artistic  production  at 
Bruges  no  further,  but  must  now  return  to  an  earlier  date  and 
observe  how  artists  in  other  places  were  likewise  led  to  abandon 
the  old  conventions  and  launch  forth  to  discover  and  exemplify 
the  ideal  of  the  new  day  then  waxing  over  civilized  Europe. 


CHAPTER  XXII 


QUENTIN  MASSYS 

It  is  a relief  to  turn  from  these  competent,  industrious,  but 
conventional  Bruges  painters  to  an  artist  of  originality  and  genius, 
who,  endeavouring  to  solve  the  problems  and  express  the  emotions 
of  his  own  day,  linked  his  art  as  much  to  that  of  the  future,  which 
he  helped  to  fashion,  as  to  the  past  whose  traditions  he  inherited. 
Such  a man  was  Quentin  Massys.  He  was  born  at  Louvain  about 
the  year  1466  ; in  1491  he  was  admitted  as  a master  into  the  guild 
of  St.  Luke  at  Antwerp,  where  he  spent  all,  or  at  any  rate  most, 
of  the  active  days  of  his  career  as  a painter  ; and  there  he  died 
in  1530. 

Lampsonius,  who  was  born  only  two  years  after  Massys’  death 
and  was  therefore  in  a much  better  position  than  modern  critics 
to  know  the  facts  concerning  his  life,  relates  that  Quentin  was 
first  of  all  a blacksmith.  Whether  he  abandoned  that  craft  in 
consequence  of  illness  or  because  the  girl  he  loved  preferred  a 
painter  for  a husband  is  to  us  immaterial.  Both  accounts  are 
ancient  and  both  may  be  true.  We  are  in  no  position  to  question 
their  accuracy.  Unreliable  modern  traditions  point  to  certain 
pieces  of  ironwork  at  Antwerp  as  by  him.  One  John  Massys, 
not  Quentin’s  father,  is  known  to  have  worked  as  blacksmith  for 
Antwerp  Cathedral  in  the  fifteenth  century,  so  that  a confusion 
might  easily  arise.  We  are  not  told  who  was  Quentin’s  master 
nor  where  he  learned  to  paint.  Van  Mander,  indeed,  states  that 
he  had  no  master,  but  a man  cannot  become  a great  painter  without 
any  teaching,  so  we  are  driven  back  to  Massys’  own  pictures  for 
information.  In  a previous  chapter  we  have  discussed  the  art  of 
Louvain  as  expressed  by  Albert  Bouts  when  Quentin  was  young. 
It  was  not  a very  brilliant  art,  but  it  possessed  a sound  technique, 
so  that  Quentin  need  not  have  left  his  native  city  to  acquire  all  the 
technical  knowledge  he  needed  to  become  a painter,  but  he  would 

312 


ARTISTS  AT  ANTWERP 


313 


have  found  little  impulse  there  toward  a modern  and  lively  artistie 
ideal.  At  Louvain  he  could  study  the  art  of  the  past ; he  must 
seek  the  inspiration  of  the  future  elsewhere.  He  found  it  at  Antwerp. 

In  the  great  days  of  fifteenth  century  Flemish  art — ^the  days  of 
the  Van  Eycks,  Roger,  and  Van  der  Goes — Antwerp  was  not  an 
important  centre  of  painting.  Many  painters  were  employed 
there  in  the  last  quarter  of  the  century,  as  has  been  remarked  above, 
but  none  were  eminent.  The  guild-books  tell  us  their  names,  but 
where  are  their  pictures  ? The  importance  of  Antwerp  as  a centre 
of  art-production  in  the  sixteenth  century  provokes  a desire  to 
know  something  about  the  beginnings  of  the  local  school.  The 
investigation  has  not  failed  to  employ  the  competent  energies  of 
Professor  Hulin,  but  he  has  to  confess  that  thus  far  they  have 
not  been  richly  rewarded.  His  observations  are  summarized  in  an 
important  article  in  the  Annual  of  the  Prussian  Museums  (1913, 
p.  68),  the  gist  of  which  is  as  follows.  In  the  quarter-century  from 
1480  to  1505  there  arrived  to  work  in  Antwerp  a great  number 
of  artists,  several  of  them  even  from  as  far  away  as  Cologne,  the 
Lower  Rhine,  and  Westphalia.  More  than  a dozen  of  the  incomers 
were  Dutchmen,  nine  came  from  Bruges,  eight  or  more  from 
Brabant.  Some,  especially  the  Bruges  men,  did  not  make  a long 
stay.  Their  old-fashioned  style  can  scarcely  have  been  popular 
in  a new,  go-ahead  city.  Several  may  not  have  been  picture- 
painters  at  all,  but  house-decorators,  glass-painters,  and  so  forth  ; 
nevertheless  the  production  of  pictures  by  the  whole  group  must 
have  been  large.  Records  enable  our  authority  to  identify  as  the 
heads  of  important  workshops  Lieven  van  Lathem  the  Court 
painter,  Henry  van  Cleve  (master  of  John  Sanders  van  Hemessen), 
Simon  van  Herlam,  James  Lombard  of  Mons,  Giles  van  Everen 
(master  of  John  de  Beer),  and  Goswin  van  der  Weyden,  all  outsiders. 
Local  artists  of  importance  were  Anthony  van  der  Hey  den,  John 
Snel,  Jacob  Thonis,  Henry  and  John  van  Wueluwe,  Aerd  Terlinck, 
and  John  de  Coninck.  Quentin  Massys  in  1491  and  John  Gossaert 
de  Mabuse  in  1503  added  themselves  to  this  busy  crowd. 

Where  are  the  pictures  painted  in  the  fifteenth  century  by  these 
men  ? They  cannot  all  have  vanished  when  so  many  Bruges 
pictures  of  the  same  date  have  survived.  Yet  Hulin  can  only 
point  with  certainty  to  a single  picture  as  an  undoubted  Antwerp 


314 


QUENTIN  MASSYS 


work  before  1500.  He  even  believes  that  he  can  identify  the 
painter  of  it  as  Henry  van  Cleve,  and  adds  the  tantalizing  statement 
that  in  1911  he  saw  in  the  hand  of  a London  dealer  the  double 
portrait  of  that  painter  and  his  wife  dated  1496  and  marked  with 
the  arms  of  the  Antwerp  Painters’  Guild,  but  he  does  not  tell  us 
where  the  picture  can  be  seen  nor  does  he  reproduce  a photograph 
of  it.  Some  wall-paintings,  the  remains  of  the  decoration  of  an 
important  room,  still  exist  at  Antwerp  in  the  surviving  part  of  a 
house, ^ de  Witte  Arend  (the  White  Eagle),  which  belonged  in  the 
fifteenth  century  to  the  Rynck  family.  Reproductions  of  two 
figures  depicting  Sibyls  will  be  found  in  the  Bulletin  monumental 
(1901,  p.  608).  They  appear  to  be  excellent  work  and  are  reminiscent 
of  Bouts,  but  the  name  of  the  painter  is  buried  in  forgetfulness. 
They  date  from  the  last  years  of  the  fifteenth  century. 

The  unique  panel-painting  above  mentioned  is  in  the  Antwerp 
Gallery  (No.  529)  and  depicts  what  we  might  call  a “ beanfeast  ” 
of  the  local  Archers’  Guild.  It  was  painted  before  1493.  Thus  we 
are  introduced  to  Antwerp  as  a city  interested  in  its  own 
contemporary  life,  especially  on  its  festive  side.  To  find  a 
parallel  we  must  go  back  to  the  “ Garden  of  Love  ” of  Philip  the 
Good,  painted  about  1425  and  known  to  us  by  a copy  in  Versailles 
Museum.  Antwerp  religious  compositions  of  the  coming  decades 
were,  in  fact,  as  we  shall  presently  learn,  thoroughly  worldly 
scenes  masquerading  as  events  in  sacred  history.  Here  there  is  no 
pretence.  We  are  introduced  to  a mixed  company  of  men  and 
women  having  a good  time  in  the  garden  of  a chateau.  Youths 
climb  trees  and  pick  apples  for  the  ladies  ; cups  of  wine  are 
circulating  ; flirtations  are  toward  ; flags  wave  ; trumpeters  blare  ; 
the  festivity  is  also  proceeding  within  the  halls  of  the  chateau, 
as  we  can  see  through  the  windows.  In  the  centre  of  the  garden 
the  head  of  the  guild  is  seated  on  a throne  under  a canopy,  attended 
by  archers.  He  also  is  about  to  drink  and  a lady  is  offering  him 
fruit,  while  comic  dancers  perform  before  him.  The  public  of  all 
ages  looks  on,  through  or  over  the  railings.  Thus  the  earliest 
Antwerp  picture  expresses  the  joy  of  life,  and  this  remains  the 
keynote  of  the  school  during  a couple  of  centuries. 

Antwerp  was  exuberant.  She  was  the  Chicago  of  those  days. 

1 14  Rue  Reynders. 


ANTWERP’S  PROSPERITY 


315 


The  discovery  of  the  Western  Continent  and  of  the  route  round 
the  Cape  was  revolutionizing  commerce.  Those  discoveries,  how- 
ever, were  not  so  much  the  cause  as  the  consequence  of  developing 
enterprise.  The  peoples  of  the  North  were  throwing  off  the 
bondage  of  the  Hanseatic  League,  under  whose  auspices  Bruges  had 
flourished.  Antwerp’s  growth  and  the  decline  of  Bruges  were  due 
quite  as  much  to  the  relative  freedom  of  the  new  port  as  to  the 
silting  up  of  the  Zwyn.  Probably  larger  ships  were  now  employed 
in  the  carrying  trade ; if  so,  the  Scheldt  would  have  suited  them 
better  than  the  Zwyn  at  its  best.  Evidently  the  atmosphere  of 
Antwerp  was  freer  than  that  of  Bruges  with  its  strong  mediaeval 
traditions.  The  former  was  a suitable  medium  for  the  propagation 
of  humanistic  culture.  The  Renaissance  there  found  a home  ; 
scholars  such  as  Erasmus  and  Peter  Gillis  could  live  in  or  visit 
the  city  with  enjoyment.  Bruges  was  never  a centre  of  the  New 
Learning,  still  less  of  the  Reformation.  Hence,  if  in  the  last 
years  of  the  fifteenth  century  Antwerp  did  not  possess  a great 
school  of  painting,  it  was  full  of  hope  and  of  ideas.  Here  a man 
might  wisely  choose  to  settle  who  felt  within  himself  the  power 
of  that  day  and  desired  as  an  artist  to  express  the  emotions  of  the 
best  and  most  forward  of  his  contemporaries . Such  a man  was 
Quentin  Massys.  He,  like  Durer,  was  more  than  a mere  craftsman. 
We  are  told  that  he  was  likewise  a musician  and  that  he  wrote  verses. 
If  Peter  Gillis  chose  him  to  paint  his  portrait  and  that  of  Erasmus 
it  was  because  he  already  knew  him.  Diirer  visited  him  in  his 
house.  These  are  all  the  facts  we  possess,  but  they  suffice  to  indicate 
what  manner  of  man  he  was  and  that  he  was  one  of  the  alert  in 
a very  wideawake  place  and  day. 

When  he  came  to  Antwerp  and  joined  the  guild  in  1491  he 
was  25  years  of  age.  There  were  other  people  of  his  name 
in  the  city,  and  they  may  have  been  his  relations  ; the  John 
Massys  who  joined  the  same  guild  ten  years  later  was,  perhaps, 
his  brother.  Quentin’s  pictures  prove  that  Louvain  art  traditions 
were  pretty  firmly  rooted  in  his  memory.  If  Albert  Bouts  taught 
him  to  paint,  it  was  not  Albert’s  pictures  but  those  of  his  father 
that  lingered  in  his  memory.  Thus  the  St.  Luke  painting  the 
Virgin,  known  to  us  by  Wierincx’  engraving,  was  evidently  sug- 
gested by  Dirk  Bouts’  picture,  as  the  Child’s  raised  arm  and  turned 


316 


QUENTIN  MASSYS 


head  prove.  Massys’  three  pictures  of  the  Virgin  kissing  the 
Child  go  back  to  the  similar  composition  by  Bouts  which  is  in  the 
Carrand  Collection  at  Florence.  The  St.  Christopher  at  Antwerp 
(No.  29)  used  actually  to  be  attributed  to  him.  The  Pieta  in  the 
Louvre  is  a finely  finished  early  Massys,  closely  following  a Bouts 
composition.  Massys’  version  was  popular  and  was  often  copied 
in  whole  or  in  part.  An  example  in  the  church  at  Cracow  claims 
to  be  an  original.  Other  copies  are  at  Louvain  and  Antwerp 
(No.  565).  A fine  version  at  Munich  (No.  134),  ascribed  to  Massys 
himself  as  far  back  as  the  year  1630,  is  now  given  by  good  critics 
to  William  Key.  Single  heads  have  been  pointed  out  in  pictures 
of  all  periods  of  Massys’  career  as  examples  of  the  continuance 
of  Bouts’  types.  The  only  comparison  worth  troubling  the  reader 
to  make  is  that  between  one  of  the  executioners  biting  his  lip 
in  Bouts’  martyrdom  of  St.  Erasmus,  and  corresponding  lip- 
biters  stirring  up  the  fire  under  St.  John’s  cauldron  on  a wing  of 
the  Antwerp  Pieta.  The  square-headed  type  of  child  which 
appears  in  Massys’  earlier  pictures  is  another  feature  that  links 
him  to  his  Brabantine  predecessors  and  contemporaries.  It  is 
the  type  prominent,  for  example,  in  pictures  by  Colin  de  Coter 
and  the  Brussels  Master  of  the  Magdalen  Legend. 

But  Quentin  was  far  from  confining  himself  to  study  of  Louvain 
pictures.  He  kept  his  eyes  open  all  round.  The  well-known  pair 
of  heads  of  Christ  and  the  Virgin  at  Antwerp,  whereof  the  National 
Gallery  possesses  replicas,  are  free  repetitions  of  heads  in  the  Ghent 
altar-piece  of  the  Van  Eycks.  The  charming  Madonna  formerly 
in  the  Aynard  Collection  (Lyons)  incorporates  a suggestion  borrowed 
from  John  van  Eyck’s  Virgin  and  Child  by  a Fountain.  That 
Massys  also  studied  the  productions  of  the  Bruges  School  is  mani- 
fested by  the  full-length  seated  Virgin  at  Brussels,  by  the  delightful 
Carstanjen  wings,  and  by  the  highly  finished  standing  Virgin  in  a 
Chapel,  where  the  architecture  is  enlivened  by  a pair  of  cherubs 
holding  the  ends  of  garlands,  obviously  borrowed  from  Memling. 
The  original  of  this  picture  is  at  Lyons  ; a copy  belongs  to  the 
Duke  of  Newcastle. 

The  Goldsmith  and  his  wife  in  their  shop,  a well-known  picture 
in  the  Louvre,  suggests  a yet  closer  imitation  of  some  lost  work 
of  the  date  and  style  of  John  van  Eyck  or  Roger.  The  costumes 


THE  MORRISON  MASTER 


317 


are  those  of  about  1440,  as  the  reader  may  convince  himself  by 
comparing  the  lady  with  the  donoress  on  Roger’s  Vienna  Crucifixion. 
Moreover,  the  character  of  the  composition  matches  that  date  and 
recalls  the  St.  Eloy  of  Peter  Christus.  The  convex  mirror  in  front 
is  similarly  significant.  We  might  have  imagined  that  this  was 
an  actual  copy  of  some  original  of  the  school  of  Van  Eyck  made  by 
Quentin  in  his  youth.  The  panel,  however,  is  dated,  and,  though 
the  last  figure  is  obscure,  the  first  three  are  always  read  151. 
Fornenbergh,  who  was  a picture-restorer  at  Antwerp  in  the  seven- 
teenth century,  when  the  figures  were  probably  more  distinct,  read 
the  date  1514.  Friedlander  has  vacillated  between  1518  and  1519. 
An  old  copy  in  the  Della  Faille  sale  was  dated  1519.  Evidently  the 
date  cannot  be  thrown  back  behind  1510.  We  have,  therefore, 
proof  of  Quentin’s  continued  interest  in  fine  work  of  the  old 
school  long  after  he  had  elaborated  a new  and  very  different 
style  of  his  own. 

It  has  even  been  suggested  that  by  some  means  Quentin  had 
come  in  contact  with  the  work  of  Geertgen.  The  guess  may 
be  hazarded  that  a certain  unidentified  painter  who  has  left  us  a 
few  interesting  pictures,  from  one  of  which  he  is  named  “ the 
Master  of  the  Morrison  triptych,”  may  have  been  a link  between  the 
two.  It  is  clear  that  he  must  have  worked  at  Antwerp  and  that 
he  fell  within  the  range  of  Quentin’s  influence,  but  before  that  he 
had  been  a close  student  of  the  work  of  Geertgen.  An  Adoration 
of  the  Magi,  which  was  in  the  Sedelmeyer  sale  (1907,  No.  231), 
shows  him  as  an  imitator,  and  the  National  Gallery  triptych 
(the  Virgo  inter  Virgines  in  front  of  a church  with  an  interior 
flooded  with  yellow  light)  as  a copyist  of  the  Haarlem  artist. 
That  he  stopped  at  Bruges  and  there  imitated  Memling  is  proved 
by  the  Morrison  triptych  itself,  which  is  little  more  than  a free 
copy  of  Memling’s  triptych  at  Vienna.  It  may  have  been  through 
him  that  Quentin  acquired  Memling’s  festoon-holding  boys  and 
some  Geertgen  features.  At  Antwerp  the  Morrison  master  in 
turn  laid  Quentin  under  contribution.  That  he  actually  resided 
there  is  proved  by  the  interesting  view  of  the  city  which  he  intro- 
duced into  the  background  of  his  Magi  panel  now  in  the  J.  G. 
Johnson  Collection  (No.  369).  Quentin’s  Madonna  at  Lyons  is 
the  closest  link  between  him  and  the  Morrison  master,  to  whom, 
22 


318 


QUENTIN  MASSYS 


indeed,  it  was  actually  attributed  by  Dulberg.  Cohen  likewise 
attributes  to  him  the  Madonna  in  the  German  Museum  at  Nurem- 
berg, there  given  to  Quentin  Massys.  As  a painter  he  was  an 
excellent  technician,  but  appears  to  have  lacked  creative  originality. 

A far  more  difficult  and  important  point  to  determine  is  how 
far  Quentin  was  indebted  to  the  Italian  art  of  his  day.  That 
he  was  so  indebted  is  demonstrated  by  a small  and  highly  finished 
Madonna  and  Child  with  a lamb,  now  in  the  Raczynski  Collection. 
No  one  denies  that  these  figures  were  painted  by  Quentin,  though 
doubts  have  been  thrown  upon  the  landscape  background,  which 
has  been  claimed  for  Patinir  or  for  some  unidentified  landscapist. 
We  shall  discuss  Quentin  as  a landscape  painter  presently  ; for 
the  moment  we  are  concerned  only  with  the  figures,  and  they 
are  obviously  copied  from  a design  by  Leonardo  da  Vinci.  The 
complete  design  also  included  the  figure  of  St.  Anne  ; Leonardo’s 
picture  of  it  in  the  Louvre  is  well  known.  That  picture  was 
in  the  first  instance  ordered  of  Filippino  in  the  year  1500  for  the 
Nunziata  Church  at  Florence.  He  turned  the  commission  over 
to  Leonardo,  who  had  already  in  1499  at  Milan  made  a cartoon  of 
the  subject,  and  in  1501  drew  another,  after  which  the  picture 
was  painted.  It  does  not  follow  that  Quentin  ever  saw  either 
the  picture  or  the  cartoon,  for  the  composition  was  frequently 
repeated  by  Leonardo’s  pupils — by  Salaino,  for  instance,  for 
San  Celso  at  Milan  (in  the  Leuchtenberg  Gallery  at  Petrograd), 
and  by  Flemish  painters  in  Italy,  examples  being  in  Lord  Yar- 
borough’s collection  and  at  Berlin.  Quentin  might  have  seen 
one  of  these  copies.  The  picture  seems  to  have  been  actually 
painted  by  Leonardo  with  the  help  of  assistants  at  Milan  between 
the  years  1508  and  1512.  In  1516  it  was  in  Leonardo’s  studio 
at  Amboise.  The  cartoon  likewise  went  to  France,  for  Louis  XII 
wanted  Leonardo  to  colour  it.  Hence,  if  Quentin  ever  saw  either 
the  original  picture  or  the  cartoon  it  must  have  been  at  Milan 
before  1516. 

This  is  far  from  being  the  only  evidence  of  Leonardesque  or, 
at  least,  Lombard  influence  experienced  by  our  Master.  Such 
influence  is  evident  in  the  pictures  of  his  ripest  period,  notably  in 
the  lost  Madonna,  of  which  there  is  a copy  in  Amsterdam  Museum  ; 
or  is  it  only  fancy  that  traces  a connexion  between  its  design  and 


LOMBARD  INFLUENCE 


319 


that,  for  instance,  of  La  Colombina  at  Petrograd  ? Leonardo’s 
grotesque  heads  may  have  had  some  effect  in  prompting  the 
Antwerp  master  to  paint  or,  at  least,  to  design  those  old  Misers 
and  other  the  like  extravagant  caricatures,  which  his  followers 
were  so  fond  of  reproducing  or  imitating.  His  late  Adoration  of 
the  Magi,  now  at  New  York,  contains  faces  of  the  kind,  and  others 
will  occur  to  every  reader.  None  of  these  resemblances,  however, 
compels  the  conclusion  that  Quentin  actually  visited  Lombardy, 
but  the  hypothesis  that  he  did  so  may  be  powerfully  enforced  by 
examination  of  the  quality  of  the  work  of  his  best  period.  The 
delicacy  and  finish  of  the  modelling  of  such  a head  as  that  of  the 
weeping  Magdalen  on  a fragment  at  Berlin  brings  Quentin  very 
close  to  Lombardy.  A similar  community  of  spirit  and  technique 
is  observable  in  the  Antwerp  half-length  Magdalen,  while  the 
rocky  element  in  several  of  Quentin’s  landscapes  recalls  the  back- 
grounds of  Leonardo.  Strongest  of  all  is  the  connexion  in  types 
of  portraiture  between  Quentin  and,  say,  Andrea  Solario.  Compare 
the  admirable  Liechtenstein  CardinaP  with  either  Solario’s  Venetian 
Senator  (of  c.  1492-3)  or  his  Longono  (of  1505),  both  in  the  National 
Gallery.  The  place  and  proportion  of  figure  on  panel,  the  amount 
and  character  of  the  landscape,  the  decorative  tree  on  either  hand, 
tlie  elevation  of  the  horizon  line— all  these  elements  are  the  same 
with  the  Italian  and  the  Antwerp  artist.  The  Northerner  must 
have  been  the  borrower,  though  it  need  not  have  been  Solario 
from  whom  he  borrowed,  because  Solario  merely  used  the  con- 
temporary Italian  convention.  An  early  Massys  portrait  in 
Chicago  Museum,  published  by  Friedlander,  shows  how  he  painted 
likenesses  in  the  Flemish  style  before  he  experienced  Italian  influence 
— the  difference  is  very  marked.  On  the  other  hand,  his  portraits 
of  Erasmus  and  Gillis  painted  in  1517  and  the  wonderful  portrait 
of  a yet  later  date  at  Frankfurt  are  examples  of  his  fully  developed 
personal  style  when  he  had  welded  together  into  a novel  unity 

1 When  in  England  this  picture  was  called  a portrait  of  Stephen  Gardiner.  It  was 
a bad  habit  of  English  owners,  especially  in  the  seventeenth  century,  to  attach  names 
to  portraits  without  any  authority.  The  naming  of  this  picture  had,  however,  some 
basis  of  record.  The  late  Rev.  J.  W.  Loftie,  who  was  a competent  antiquary,  informed 
me  that  he  knew  this  picture  when  it  belonged  to  a friend  of  his  and  was  called  a Holbein. 
At  that  time  there  was  glued  on  the  back  of  it  an  old  bit  of  vellum  inscribed  in  an  Eliza- 
bethan handwriting,  “ Stephen  Gardiner,  Bishop  of  Winchester.” 


320 


QUENTIN  MASSYS 


all  the  factors  of  his  learning  and  experience,  and  had  passed 
beyond  the  imitation  of  any  particular  master  or  school. 

Without  attempting  to  dogmatize,  it  seems  to  me  that  there  is 
at  least  a probability  that  Massys  paid  a visit  to  North  Italy. 
If  he  did  so  it  must  have  been  after  the  yoar  1511,  when  he  finished 
the  Pieta  triptych  now  in  Antwerp  Museum.  That  and  the 
Brussels  triptych  must  have  kept  him  busy  at  home  for  four  or 
five  years,  and  a direct  Italian  influence  is  not  visible  in  them. 
If  we  are  to  bring  him  into  contact  with  Leonardo  we  must  carry 
him  to  Milan  before  1516.  We  are  left,  therefore,  with  the  four 
years  1512  to  1515  as  the  most  likely  time.  In  the  Andre  Collection 
is  a remarkable  head  of  an  old  man  in  profile  painted  on  paper, 
fully  signed  and  dated  1513.  It  is  not  a portrait  but  a “ character- 
study.”  The  Italian  qualities  in  the  work  are  obvious,  though 
the  suggestion  that  it  is  a likeness  of  Cosimo  de’  Medici  taken 
from  a medal  is  not  accepted.  If  any  existing  work  of  Quentin’s 
was  done  in  Italy  this  is  the  most  likely,  and  the  fact  that  it  is 
painted  on  paper  accords  with  the  circumstances  of  a traveller. 

Quentin  appears  to  have  been  acquainted  with  Italian  medals. 
To  see  them  he  need  not  have  gone  to  Italy,  for  they  were  carried 
far  and  wide ; still,  he  would  have  had  them  brought  more 
inevitably  under  his  attention  south  of  the  Alps  than  in  Antwerp. 
Erasmus  distinctly  states  that  Quentin  cast  a portrait  of  him  in 
bronze — quam  Quintinus  Antverpiae  fundit  aere.  The  Erasmus 
medal  dated  1519  must  assuredly  be  the  likeness  in  question. 
We  have  no  other  sculpture  by  the  artist  with  which  to  compare 
it.  It  is  of  Italian  type.  The  fact  that  beside  painting  Erasmus’ 
portrait  Quentin  made  this  experiment  for  him,  doubtless  at  his 
prompting,  indicates  the  existence  of  rather  a close  intimacy 
between  artist  and  scholar.  Quentin  also  came  into  personal 
contact  with  the  two  greatest  Northern  painters  of  his  day — 
Durer  and  Holbein.  Both  in  turn  visited  him  in  his  house  at 
Antwerp.  Diirer’s  first  call  was  made  in  August  1520,  but  the 
two  artists  probably  often  met  during  the  following  months  which 
Durer  spent  in  Antwerp.  Quentin  was  then  54  years  old,  Durer 
49 ; both  mature  artists.  Two  men  of  such  intelligence  and 
independent  originality  must  have  had  much  of  interest  to 
say  to  one  another  and  to  note  in  one  another’s  art.  Both,  as 


HIS  LANDSCAPES 


321 


has  been  acutely  observed,  had  this  in  common,  that  they  were 
more  infected  with  the  humanistic  spirit  than  with  Renaissance 
forms.  I trust  it  is  not  mere  fancy  that  makes  me  see  in  their 
later  work  traces  of  a mutual  influence.  We  possess  three  portraits 
painted  by  Diirer  in  1521  : at  Madrid,  in  the  Gardner  Collection 
(Boston),  and  the  Van  Orley  at  Dresden.  The  two  former  are 
unlike  any  he  had  previously  produced,  but  have  a kinship  with 
Massy s,  or  at  least  with  his  Frankfurt  painting,  though  that  may 
have  been  done  later.  On  the  other  hand,  the  lost  original  of 
Quentin’s  St.  Jerome  in  his  study,  whereof  there  is  a copy  at 
Vienna  (No.  993),  certainly  owed  something  to  Diirer’s  picture  of 
the  same  subject  which  is  now  at  Lisbon. 

Holbein  must  have  visited  Massys  in  1526  on  his  way  through 
Antwerp  to  England,  when  he  carried  an  introduction  from 
Erasmus  to  Peter  Gillis,  who  was  to  send  him  to  Quentin’s 
house.  He  was  then  27  years  old,  while  Quentin  was  60 ; he 
was  therefore  a young  man  in  the  receptive  stage.  Whether  the 
two  met  again  in  1528,  when  Holbein  was  returning  to  Basle, 
we  know  not.  In  1532  Holbein  was  again  in  Antwerp  en  route 
for  England,  but  Quentin  had  then  been  dead  two  years.  By 
universal  admission,  Holbein’s  English  portraits  show  that  he 
did  not  come  into  contact  with  Quentin  in  vain. 

In  landscape  Massys  was  an  important  innovator.  His  great 
Louvain  predecessor  was  the  most  advanced  landscape  painter  of  his 
day  and  impelled  his  followers,  especially  the  Dutchmen,  to  make 
of  landscape  a serious  study.  A group  of  artists  in  the  Meuse 
region  developed  a landscape  school  of  their  own,  but  they  may  have 
owed  a good  deal  to  Quentin,  for  according  to  Friedlander  it  was 
he  who  invented  those  wide-extending  multifarious  landscape 
backgrounds  which  we  chiefly  associate  with  Patinir.  Bosch, 
however,  had  been  before  him.  It  has  been  customary  to  attribute 
to  Patinir  landscapes  of  this  character  in  Quentin’s  pictures. 
One  such  background  Patinir  certainly  painted  for  figures  by 
his  fellow-artist ; it  is  in  the  picture  of  the  Temptation  of 
St.  Anthony  at  Madrid.  Hulin  would  likewise  attribute  to  Patinir 
the  landscape  behind  the  above-mentioned  Leonardesque  Madonna 
with  the  Lamb  ; Friedlander  differs.  But  other  pictures  in  which 
Patinir  had  no  share  possess  equally  remarkable  landscapes  of 


322 


QUENTIN  MASSYS 


the  wide- extending  sort.  A good  example  is  the  Crucifixion  in 
the  Liechtenstein  Collection  painted  about  1505.  Here  the  land- 
scape is  less  reminiscent  of  Bouts  than  of  David,  whose  favourite 
circular  building  appears  in  the  city  at  the  foot  of  a group  of  hills, 
a wide  plain  extending  on  the  left  to  remoter  mountains.  No 
greater  contrast  could  be  chosen  than  that  between  this  soft 
retreating  distance  with  its  airy  spaciousness  and  the  hard  niggling 
backgrounds  of  Albert  Bouts.  Moreover,  Massys’  figures  are  in 
the  landscape,  which  stretches  backward  and  is  not  like  a theatre 
drop-scene  hung  behind  them.  They  possess  the  distinction  of 
life,  are  carefully  studied  and  soundly  modelled,  yet  merge  into 
their  surroundings.  Charming  examples  are  two  little  penitent 
ladies,  clothed  only  in  their  own  hair,  who  sorrow  very  deeply 
and  not  ungracefully  in  the  delightful  companionship  of  flowers, 
grass,  water,  and  hill-sides.  The  two  little  panels  are  in  the 
J.  G.  Johnson  Collection  (Nos.  366,  367).  There  is  a statement 
of  no  very  great  authority  that  Quentin  visited  the  Rhine  ; he 
would  have  done  so  on  the  road  to  Italy,  but  if  he  derived  his  notion 
of  hills  from  that  river  he  must  first  have  beheld  it  several  years 
before  1513.  An  inventory  of  1642  claims  to  include  a view  of 
a place  near  Liege  by  Quentin.  How  glad  we  should  be  to  see  it 
if  the  ascription  was  correct ! 

We  may  now  rapidly  glance  at  a few  of  Quentin’s  pictures 
in  the  light  of  the  foregoing  considerations  as  to  the  derivation 
of  his  art.  The  two  early  Madonnas  at  Brussels  (Nos.  540  and  643) 
show  how  from  the  beginning  he  treated  conventional  subjects 
in  a fresh  and  individual  style.  These  are  not,  like  the  general 
run  of  Madonnas  of  the  date,  mere  repetitions  of  old  fixed  types. 
Pose,  models,  composition — all  are  novel.  The  Child  has  the  Bra- 
bantine  square  head,  but  the  Virgin  with  her  rich  mass  of  flowing 
hair  framing  a sweet  face  is  the  reverse  of  stale,  and  there  is  humour 
in  the  way  the  tiny  fat-faced  cherubs,  who  hold  up  the  curtain, 
peep  over  to  get  a look,  like  children  catching  a surreptitious 
glimpse  of  a country  circus.  The  drapery  and  pose  of  the  full- 
length  version  are  reminiscent  of  the  Van  Eycks.  The  Lyons 
Madonna  shows  how  the  love  of  impossibly  decorative  architecture, 
just  then  so  common  with  local  painters,  attracted  Quentin  for 
a moment ; but  the  charm  of  the  figures  dominates  it  and  the 


EARLY  PICTURES 


323 


delicacy  of  the  workmanship  delights  the  eye.  More  pleasing, 
perhaps,  than  any  of  these  is  the  Aynard  Madonna  with  its  quaintly 
and  babyishly  crowing  Child,  who  throws  out  His  arms  stiffly 
and  fills  His  mother’s  heart  with  joy.  Here  landscape  occupies 
the  background. 

An  important  and  attractive  Virgin  and  Child  between  SS. 
Catherine  and  Barbara  turned  up  at  the  Linnell  sale  at  Christie’s 
in  1918,^  and  is  in  the  collection  of  Mr.  C.  B.  O.  Clarke  in  London. 
It  is  a painting  in  tempera  on  linen,  the  figures  being  three-quarter 
lengths.  It  may  date  from  about  the  year  1510.  The  Child’s 
head  is  still  of  the  cubical  Brabantine  type,  and  has  not  been  re- 
placed by  the  curly-headed  infant  adopted  by  Massys  after  he  had 
come  into  contact  with  Leonardo’s  designs.  Barbara  is  the  same 
model  as  Salome  on  the  wing  of  the  Antwerp  triptych.  Thus  the 
picture  seems  to  find  its  place  between  the  altar-pieces  of  Brussels 
and  Antwerp.  The  actual  painting  is  very  delicate.  The  charm 
sought  for  is  expressed  in  a graceful  linear  composition.  The 
modelling  renders  a low  relief.  Age  has  dimmed  the  eolours, 
which  originally  formed  a bright  patchwork.  Such  fragile  works 
do  not  easily  survive  four  centuries.  If  one  painting  of  the  kind 
has  come  down  to  us  from  Massys  he  probably  painted  many  more. 
Artists  of  this  school  and  period  from  Van  Eyck  to  Massys  are 
known  to  us  mainly  by  their  most  durable  works.  We  have  to 
remember  that  they  may  have  acquired  much  of  their  skill  by 
practice  in  producing  pictures  in  tempera  on  linen,  most  of  which 
have  perished  ; but  many  a panel-painting  of  finished  technique, 
at  which  to-day  we  wonder,  owes  some,  at  least,  of  its  accomplish- 
ment to  work  done  in  more  perishable  materials  whose  former  ex- 
istence is  thereby  implied. 

The  group  of  Crucifixions  was  destined  to  attract  the  imitative 
admiration  of  contemporary  artists.  Best  of  them  is  the  Liechten- 
stein example  already  mentioned,  of  which  there  is  a copy  at 
^Munich.  Other  versions  of  the  same  subject  are  in  the  National 
Gallery,  the  Mayer  van  den  Bergh  and  Harrach  (Vienna)  Col- 
lections, and  at  Brussels.  Hulin  thinks  the  Mayer  van  den  Bergh 
example  the  earliest.  The  Harrach  and  Brussels  pictures  are  not 
by  Massys  himself.  It  is  thought  that  one  of  the  group  may 
1 Reproduced  in  the  Burlington  Magazine,  July  1918. 


324 


QUENTIN  MASSYS 


repeat  on  a smaller  seale  the  composition  of  the  great  altar-piece 
made  by  our  master  for  Notre  Dame  at  Antwerp,  which  was 
destroyed  in  the  religious  riots  of  1566.  Compared  with  the 
horrible  and  populous  Crucifixions  painted  by  several  contemporary 
and  earlier  artists,  these  are  a contrast  and  a relief.  They  are 
dignified,  quiet,  reserved,  and  truly  devotional  pictures,  before 
which  any  true  Christian  might  pray  in  peace.  The  figures  are 
few.  The  Magdalen,  in  not  too  costly  attire,  embraces  the  foot 
of  the  Cross.  The  Virgin  is  pitifully  sad.  The  landscapes  differ 
in  all,  and  show  a development  which  the  reader  can  observe  for 
himself.  The  finely  painted  Pieta  in  the  Louvre  belongs  to  this 
group,  and  possesses  similar  merits.  The  little  Carstanjen  wings 
so  delightfully  treated,  with  colouring  so  agreeable,  and  a charming 
appearance  of  simplicity,  cannot  fail  to  please  every  beholder. 
A connexion  might  be  imagined  between  this  bushy,  curly-headed 
St.  John  and  the  Widener  wing  by  Colin  de  Coter,  but  was  Massy s 
the  borrower  ? Artists  had  painted  saints  on  picture  shutters 
for  many  generations,  but  not  such  as  the  St.  Agnes  here.  She 
is  fully  human  and  lovable  for  her  sweetness  and  her  beauty  too. 
It  does  not  detract  from  her  saintliness  that  she  knows  how  to 
choose  and  to  wear  her  clothes.  An  admirable  taste  pervades  the 
work,  and  the  technique  is  delicate  and  in  a pleasing  harmony  with 
the  design. 

If  Quentin  Massys  were  generally  remembered  by  such  paintings 
as  these  he  would  be  commonly  regarded  with  affection  ; but 
we  mainly  associate  him  with  his  two  great  surviving  triptychs, 
the  Virgin’s  Kin  (dated  1509)  at  Brussels  and  the  Pieta  of  1511 
at  Antwerp.  Both  are  remarkable  and,  indeed,  were  epoch-making 
works,  but  they  are  not  pleasing.  The  latter  shows  considerable 
advance  beyond  the  former  in  creative  power.  The  figures  are 
agitated  with  emotion  beside  being  more  human  and  technically 
more  fully  realized  in  the  third  dimension  of  depth  than  ever  in 
the  North  before,  yet  they  still  remain  a solid  group  like  a mass 
of  wood-carving.  Here  Massys  stands  forth  as  the  lineal  ancestor 
of  Rubens.  In  these  two  triptychs  the  great  gap  between  the 
Van  Eycks  and  the  Master  who  followed  them  two  and  a half 
centuries  later  is  visibly  bridged.  Massys  sounded  the  death- 
knell  of  mediseval  art,  though  still  adhering  to  its  forms.  He 


THE  BANKERS 


325 


infused  into  them  the  new  spirit  which  was  then  revolutionizing 
West  European  civilization. 

Every  artist’s  work  becomes  unfashionable  a few  decades 
after  his  death.  His  reputation  has  to  pass  through  a period  of 
eclipse ; but  if  his  work  be  in  fact  first-rate,  public  appreciation 
is  bound  to  return  to  it.  Thus  it  happened  to  Massy s.  It  was 
in  the  circle  of  Rubens  that  his  fame  was  revived.  How  easily 
Rubens  could  have  painted  the  Herodias  wing  in  his  own  style 
with  no  substantial  alteration  in  essentials  ! He  recognized  in 
Massys  a kindred  spirit. 

Reference  has  already  been  made  to  the  Louvre  picture  of  the 
Banker  and  his  Wife,  and  its  probable  dependence  upon  an  earlier 
work.  Followers  of  Massys  multiplied  imitations  both  of  this 
and  of  a group  of  two  men  counting  money  and  generally  called 
“ the  Misers.”  Probably  Quentin  painted  a version  also  of  that, 
but  if  he  did,  it  too  seems  to  have  been  based  on  an  earlier  lost 
original  dating  from  the  same  period  of  about  1440  as  the  original 
of  the  Banker  and  his  Wife.  Marcantonio  Michiel  records  having 
seen  in  the  Lampognano  house  in  Milan  “ el  quadretto  a mezze 
figure  del  patron  che  far  conto  con  el  fattor ; fu  de  man  de  Zuan 
Heic,  credo  Memelino,  Ponentino,  fatto  del  1440.”  The  two 
originals  of  the  time  of  John  van  Eyck,  revived  by  Quentin’s 
imitations  or  copies,  produced  a numerous  offspring. ^ 

Taking  the  Banker  and  his  Wife  first,  there  was  a strict  copy 
of  it,  dated  1519,  in  the  Della  Faille  sale  (1903).  Next  we  have  a 
pair  of  examples  at  Sigmaringen  and  Antwerp,  in  which  a messenger 
is  coming  in  behind  with  a letter  and  there  are  other  novel  details. 
Thirdly,  we  have  a set  of  examples  by  or  after  Marinus  van  Reymers- 
wael,  dated  in  and  after  1538,  at  Copenhagen,  Dresden,  Florence 
(Coll.  Carrand),  Madrid,  Munich,  Nantes,  Valenciennes,  and  else- 
where. One  of  these,  the  Copenhagen  picture,  likewise  contains 
the  messenger-boy.  On  the  Sigmaringen  picture  M.  de  Mely  ^ 
discovered  that,  of  the  inscribed  documents  depicted,  one  in  Flemish 
purports  to  be  the  half-year  account  of  Jan  Obrechts  for  1534, 
another  to  record  a bargain  made  by  Master  Cornelis  Ivan  de 
Capelle,  the  painter  who  is  better  known  as  Corneille  de  Lyon. 

1 See  Mr.  Lionel  Cust  in  the  Burlington  Mag.,  February  1912,  p.  252. 

2 Monuments  et  Mimoires  Piot,  xviii  (1911). 


326 


QUENTIN  MASSYS 


The  composition  generally  known  as  the  two  Bankers  or  the 
Misers,  but  in  fact  depicting  Excisemen,  likewise  appears  in  several 
versions  differing  in  detail  from  one  another,  but  there  are  only 
two  markedly  different  types,  one  represented  by  the  National 
Gallery  (No.  944)  version,  the  other  by  examples  at  Antwerp 
(No.  244),  Bologna,  Cologne  (Coll.  Oppenheim — where  now  ?), 
Hagley,  Munich  (No.  136),  Naples,  and  Windsor  Castle.  On 
a French  document  introduced  into  the  Oppenheim  picture, 
Mr.  Weale  also  read  the  name  of  Cornells  van  de  Capelle,  the 
paper  professing  to  be  a receipt  for  2,000  livres  received  from  the 
salt-tax  on  behalf  of  the  King. 

These  two  occurrences  of  the  name  of  the  painter  Corneille  de 
Lyon  not  unnaturally  led  M.  de  Mely  to  conclude  that  the  pictures 
on  which  the  name  appeared  and  such  others  as  closely  agree 
with  them  in  style  were  the  work  of  that  artist.  He  is  otherwise 
known  to  us  as  the  painter  of  a delicate  series  of  portraits  of 
French  ladies  and  gentlemen  done  on  a small  scale  in  a style 
resembling  that  associated  with  the  Clouets.  Between  these 
portraits  and  the  office  pictures  there  is  scarcely  a quality  in 
common.  The  bulk  of  the  existing  versions  are  evidently  by 
Marinus,  and  many  of  them  are  signed.  Other  painters  also 
repeated  them.  Thus  Bernard  de  Ryckere  (1535-90)  kept  a regular 
picture  factory  at  Antwerp  and  is  recorded  to  have  turned  out  a 
number  of  copies  of  the  Excisemen,  and  some  of  these  may  be 
among  the  versions  now  extant.  Evidently  such  pictures  were  very 
popular,  and  more  popular  in  the  grosser  form  given  to  them  by 
Marinus  than  as  designed  by  Quentin.  Marinus  seems  almost 
animated  by  hostility  to  the  persons  depicted.  There  is  no  trace 
of  such  a feeling  or  of  caricature  in  Quentin’s  original.  His 
study  in  the  Pourtales  Collection  of  an  ugly  old  lover  cozened  out 
of  his  purse  by  an  Antwerp  courtesan  was  likewise  copied  and 
imitated.  There  is  an  inferior  version  in  the  Antwerp  Gallery 
which  it  seems  an  insult  to  Corneille  to  ascribe  to  him.  Marinus 
was  a coarse  artist  who  worked  for  the  vulgar  rich  at  Antwerp  in 
his  day.  He  painted  other  pictures  ,in  a like  style  : a lawyer 
in  his  office,  at  Munich  (No.  139,  dated  1542)  ; the  Call  of 
St.  Matthew,  in  the  Northbrook  Collection;  St.  Jerome  in  his  cell 
in  three  different  versions,  in  which  he  also  followed  the  lead  of 


MARINUS  VAN  REYMERSWAEL 


327 


Massys  and  even  more  closely  of  Diirer.  It  was  a misfortune  for 
Quentin’s  reputation  that  these  gross  popular  pictures  by  artists 
of  his  school  were  attributed  to  him  in  most  of  the  galleries  of 
Europe.  His  own  originals,  the  Banker,  the  Courtesan,  and 
St.  Jerome,  had  none  of  the  vulgar  quality  characteristic  of  the 
later  versions  and  are  exceptional  in  the  great  body  of  his  fine  work. 

For  such  pictures,  however,  there  was  a demand,  and  painters, 
like  any  other  kind  of  craftsmen,  exist  to  supply  demands.  It  is 
the  aim  of  the  best  of  them  to  create  a demand  for  their  best 
work,  but  they  may  not  always  entirely  succeed.  Pictures  of  the 
class  we  are  considering  were  called  for.  Quentin  himself  painted 
a few  of  them  and  probably  designed  some  others,  such  as  the 
Bargain  over  a Hen  at  Dresden  (No.  804),  but  in  the  main  they  were 
carried  out  by  assistants  in  the  studio.  The  tendency  is  to  ascribe 
them  to  Quentin’s  son  Jan  Massys.  The  Old  Man  with  a Courtesan 
at  Antwerp  (No.  566)  is  of  this  class. ‘ The  assistants  degraded 
Quentin’s  types,  and  Marinus  degraded  them  still  further.  He 
similarly  imitated  and  coarsened  Quentin’s  types  of  Madonnas  and 
portraits.  We  need  not  further  concern  ourselves  with  him. 

Incidental  reference  has  already  been  made  to  some  of 
Quentin’s  portraits,  but  a word  must  be  said  about  them  as  a 
group.  The  Chicago  panel  shows  him  adopting  the  fifteenth 
century  convention,  though  with  a vividness  of  vision  and  insight 
that  makes  of  a likeness  a revelation.  The  Liechtenstein  Cardinal 
is  a statelier  rendering  proper  to  a personage  of  importance,  but 
the  whole  body  is  still  at  rest,  the  face  in  repose.  Of  similar 
type  is  the  Portrait  of  a Notary  at  Northwick  Park,  but  there  is 
something  more  instantaneous  in  the  gesture  of  the  momentarily 
arrested  hand.  When,  however,  we  come  to  the  pair  of  portraits 
of  Erasmus  and  Peter  Gillis  we  are  conscious  of  an  advance.  The 
two  pictures  were  painted  in  1517  to  be  sent  as  a gift  to  Sir  Thomas 
i\Iore,  and  the  correspondence  relating  to  them  has  been  preserved. 
The  original  of  the  Erasmus  is  thought  to  be  in  the  Stroganoff 
Collection  (Rome).  A tolerable  copy  is  in  the  Corsini  Gallery  at 
Rome,  others  at  Amsterdam  and  Hampton  Court.  The  scholar 
sits  in  a reposeful  attitude  writing  at  his  study  table.  Far  more 

1 It  has  also  been  ineluded  in  the  group  which  M.  de  Mely  would  attribute  to  Corneille 
de  Lyon. 


328 


QUENTIN  MASSYS 


attractive  is  the  Gillis,  whereof  the  original  remains  in  Lord  Radnor’s 
collection.  It  brings  us  in  contact  not  merely  with  the  man  but 
with  his  charm.  He  must  have  been  a delightful  person.  We  see 
him  at  a moment  when  his  mind  is  active.  He  has  just  finished 
speaking.  His  face  is  bright,  his  hand  in  the  midst  of  gesture, 
his  pose  a passing  one.  Every  part  of  him  expresses  a living, 
thinking,  communicating  personality.  The  charm  is  not  in  the  face 
only,  but  in  the  whole  man.  No  such  portrait  had  been  painted 
before,  even  in  Italy.  It  carried  portraiture  to  a higher  level  and 
set  a difficult  problem  for  Quentin’s  rivals.  No  wonder  More 
was  pleased.  What  a priceless  present ! Similar  vitality  and 
momentariness  are  revealed  in  the  Man  with  the  pair  of  eye- 
glasses which  is  in  the  Stadel  Gallery  at  Frankfurt.  Here  the 
gesture  is  plainly  that  of  one  speaking,  almost  of  a preacher.  The 
face  is  even  more  fully  expressive.  All  Quentin’s  knowledge  of 
men  and  experience  of  life  were  required  thus  to  behold,  to  com- 
prehend, and  to  depict. 

I have  never  seen  the  splendid  portrait  of  the  much  portrayed 
John  Carondelet  which  was  in  the  Duchatel  Collection  in  Paris 
and  is  now  in  America  in  that  of  Mr.  Havemeyer.  It  must 
have  been  painted  before  1525,  when  Bernard  van  Orley  copied 
the  head,  and  I can  think  of  no  other  artist  at  that  date  who  could 
have  painted  it,  or  the  original  of  it  if  it  be  a copy,  except  Quentin. 
As  a vital  presentment  of  the  man  it  is  even  superior  to  the  best 
of  the  portraits  of  the  same  ecclesiastic  by  Mabuse.  The  picture 
was  at  one  time  attributed  to  Sotte  Cleve,  but  the  date  alone  renders 
the  attribution  impossible.  Here  again  we  have  the  same  vitality, 
the  keen  momentary  understanding  vision,  which  distinguishes  the 
Gillis  and  the  Frankfurt  picture.  Such  portraits  stand  far  above 
Quentin’s  religious  works,  not  because  he  was  of  an  irreligious  cast 
of  mind,  but  because  he  lived  in  a day  when  the  best  men  had  begun 
to  find  the  actual  world  more  interesting  than  any  dreamland, 
and  human  nature  itself  a sublime  subject  of  study.  Works 
of  this  type  are  not  less  imaginative  than  paintings  of  all  the 
encircling  hierarchies  of  Heaven.  It  was  a truth  some  men  were 
just  beginning  to  realize.  Of  such  was  Quentin,  and  for  such  the 
work  of  his  maturest  years  was  done.  From  first  to  last  he  was  at 
strife  with  the  difficulties  of  his  craft.  He  had  to  express  by  force 


HIS  PORTRAITS 


329 


the  new  vision,  the  new  desires  and  emotions  within  him  and  the 
best  men  of  his  day.  Hence  his  new  schemes  of  colour  and 
composition.  Always  he  aimed  at  nobility.  He  was  content  with 
no  convention,  not  even  one  of  his  own  making.  He  would  press 
forward  and  forward  still,  and  so  his  last  works  are  in  their  own  way 
as  novel  as  any  that  went  before  them.  The  Van  Eycks,  Hugo 
van  der  Goes,  Quentin  Massys — these  were  the  four  important 
original  artists  we  have  thus  far  been  brought  in  contact  with, 
nor  need  we  linger  to  inquire  which  of  {them  was  greatest. 

It  is  remarkable  that,  notwithstanding  Quentin’s  force,  origi- 
nality, high  reputation,  and  the  influence  he  visibly  exercised 
over  the  best  of  his  contemporaries,  he  was  not  followed  by  a group 
of  imitators,  as,  for  instance,  Roger  van  der  Weyden  and  Memling 
were  followed.  Marinus  and  others  repeated  his  compositions  of 
a particular  type,  and  Van  Mander  mentions  an  artist  as  excelling 
as  a copyist  of  his  works ; there  were  also  his  sons  and  a pupil  or 
two ; but  the  generation  of  Antwerp  painters  who  succeeded 
Quentin  did  not  in  any  marked  degree  carry  on  his  traditions 
or  popularize  his  forms.  It  was  a time  of  rapid  changes,  not  of 
step-by-step  development.  There  was  one  nameless  artist  whose 
work  so  resembles  Quentin’s  that  it  was  ascribed  to  him  till  Fried- 
lander  separated  it  and  named  the  painter  the  Master  of  the  Mansi 
Magdalen.  The  picture  in  question  is  now  in  the  Berlin  Museum. ^ 
It  is  a three-quarter  length  full-fronted  Magdalen  projected  against 
a rocky  landscape  background.  The  figure  has  no  real  con- 
nexion with  the  landscape,  which  is  like  a painted  hanging  behind 
it.  In  style  and  type  Quentin  is  closely  followed  ; the  figure 
may  actually  have  been  designed  by  him.  The  work  is  carefully 
done,  but  it  lacks  the  master’s  breadth,  though  it,  to  some  degree, 
recalls  his  refinement.  To  the  same  hand  is  now  likewise  referred 
the  Munich  copy  of  the  miraculous  picture  of  the  Virgin  mentioned 
in  a previous  chapter  in  connexion  with  the  Bruges  painter  John 
van  Eeckele.  A Madonna  which  was  shown  at  Bruges  in  1902 
(No.  372)  and  has  since  passed  through  more  than  one  private 
collection  is  still  close  to  Quentin,  but  has  a landscape  background 

1 Jahrb.  Pr.  Kss.  1915,  p.  6.  Hymans  knew  of  a replica  in  a Rothschild  Collection 
in  Paris,  and  of  a reduction  at  Antwerp  (No.  243).  There  is  also  a half-length  replica 
in  the  King  of  Rumania’s  Collection. 


330 


QUENTIN  MASSYS 


better  harmonizing  with  the  figures.  The  design  is  a modification 
of  the  type  of  the  Virgin  Kissing  the  Child  to  which  Bouts  gave 
currency.  The  J.  G.  Johnson  Collection  contains  a full-length 
Salvator  Mundi,  in  which  part  of  the  landscape  is  copied  in  reverse 
from  Diirer’s  engraving  of  St.  Eustace  (B.  57).  Christ  wears  a fine 
embroidered  robe  and  holds  a splendid  crystal  orb  surmounted 
by  a gold  cross  elaborately  niched,  buttressed,  and  pinnacled,  and 
the  whole  picture  is  an  effective  piece  of  decoration,  but  the  head 
of  Christ  lacks  every  trace  of  nobility.  Half-length  repetitions 
of  this  type  are  numerous,  several  from  the  studio  of  Joos  van 
Cleve.  The  design  is  attributed  to  Quentin.^  Our  painter  laid 
Diirer  more  emphatically  under  contribution  in  his  picture  of  Adam 
and  Eve  at  Brussels,  but  though  the  forms  are  Durer’s  the  soft 
modelling  is  characteristic  of  Antwerp  nudes  of  about  1550.  There 
is  an  unpleasing  emphasis  on  their  nudity.  They  look  like  people 
accustomed  to  be  draped  and  suddenly  deprived  of  their  clothes. 
This  weakness  is  a Northern  failing,  observable  also,  for  example, 
in  Cranach’s  pictures  of  this  kind  and  in  those  by  the  painter  we 
have  next  to  consider.  The  Entombment  in  the  Ghent  Museum 
was  likewise  copied  by  our  artist  from  a Diirer  print,  the  woodcut 
B.  44.  Quentin  appears  to  have  had  several  painter  sons.  It  is 
possible  that  the  Master  of  the  Mansi  Magdalen  may  have  been  one 
of  them,  but  he  was  neither  Jan  nor  Cornelis,  because  the  style 
of  both  is  known  from  existing  pictures,  and  the  list  of  those 
authentically  by  Jan  is  a fairly  long  one. 

Jan  Massys  appears  to  have  been  born  in  1509  at  Antwerp,  and 
was  a pupil  of  his  father,  but  he  did  not  become  a master  in  the 
guild  till  1531,  the  year  after  Quentin’s  death.  Brief  reference  has 
already  been  made  to  pictures  supposed  to  have  been  painted  by 
him  in  his  father’s  workshop.  Owing  to  his  heretical  opinions,  he 
was  banished  from  Antwerp  in  1543  and  remained  away  until  1558. 
During  those  years  he  is  supposed  to  have  spent  time  in  Italy. 
I think  there  are  also  signs  of  his  having  come  in  contact  with  the 
work  of  Mabuse  and  with  French  taste.  From  the  date  of  his 
return  it  was  his  custom  to  sign  and  date  his  pictures  ; we  can  thus 
follow  the  later  stages  of  his  art  with  certainty.  He  died— it  is 
said  in  poverty — ^before  the  8th  of  October,  1575,  and  left  a painter 

1 There  is  also  an  engraving  by  the  Master  with  the  Crab  (P.  40). 


HIS  SONS  331 

son  named  Quentin  to  carry  on  the  family  craft,  but  without  his 
grandfather’s  success. 

A half-length  of  the  Virgin  Kissing  the  Child  which  is  in  the 
Church  of  St.  James  at  Antwerp  shows  how  closely  at  first  he  fol- 
lowed his  father’s  traditions.  It  stands  much  nearer  to  him  than 
the  corresponding  picture  by  the  Mansi  Master.  The  picture 
imitated  is  the  enthroned  Madonna  at  Berlin,  but  the  compact  and 
satisfying  composition  of  the  Child’s  legs  in  that  is  here  replaced 
by  an  awkward  sprawl  and  is  an  early  instance  of  Jan’s  incapacity 
to  compose  the  limbs  of  his  figures  satisfactorily.  His  heretical 
tendencies  rendered  him  inapt  to  paint  the  old  round  of  religious 
subjects  with  enjoyment ; it  is  therefore  not  surprising  to  find  him 
turning  his  attention  to  more  modern  types,  and  among  these 
especially  to  nudes.  It  was  for  the  sake  of  her  possible  nudity  and 
personal  beauty  that  he  painted  the  half-length  Judith  which  is 
now  in  the  Museum  at  Boston.*  This  is  the  type  of  picture  which 
is  held  to  prove  that  Jan  Massys  studied  in  Italy  ; the  softness 
and  delicacy  of  the  modelling  does,  in  fact,  remind  us  of  Lombard 
technique.  But  if  anyone  will  compare  it  with  the  nude  half- 
length  of  Diane  de  Poitiers  by  Fran9ois  Clouet,  which  is  at  Richmond 
in  the  Cook  Collection,  he  will,  I think,  find  in  both  the  same 
kind  of  peculiar  nakedness  which  I have  above  referred  to.  That 
picture  is  assigned  to  about  1550,  which  may  be  the  approximate 
date  of  Jan’s.  I suggest  that  both  pictures  were  produced  in  a 
similar  atmosphere  and  to  gratify  a like  taste,  which  was  French 
rather  than  Italian.  It  is  nakedness  for  nakedness’  sake  rather 
than  for  the  sake  of  beauty,  such  beauty  as  clothes  the  nudity  of 
the  Greeks,  of  Giorgione  and  of  Velasquez.  Another  picture  of 
the  same  subject  which  was  in  the  Otlet  sale  (No.  3)  is  a less 
elaborate  work,  but  displays  the  artist’s  striving  after  prettiness. 
This  lady  is  not  absolutely  nude  to  the  waist  but  covered  with  a 
perfectly  transparent  garment.  The  Venus  in  the  original  of 
Mabuse’s  lost  Mars,  Venus,  and  Cupid  was  similarly  clad,  and  a 
like  treatment  in  contemporary  French  pictures  might  be  cited.* 

^ It  was  shown  at  Bruges  in  1902,  No.  241. 

* For  example,  the  Sabina  Poppaea  in  the  Geneva  Museum.  At  Althorp  is  an  ideal 
portrait  of  Diane  de  Poitiers,  very  like  the  work  of  Jan.  See  the  Burlington  Magazine, 
November  1913,  p.  89. 


332 


QUENTIN  MASSYS 


It  seems  to  me  that  in  works  of  this  elass  Jan  Massys  was  following 
in  the  wake  of  Mabuse  and  of  the  Fontainebleau  School  rather 
than  of  any  Italian.  The  Louvre  David  and  Bathsheba,  which 
is  dated  1562,  shows  a slight  further  advance  along  the  same  lines, 
and  exemplifies  the  artist’s  search  for  pretty  models  rather  than 
any  increasing  power  of  painting  beautifully.  His  delicate  painting 
does  not  disguise  the  awkwardness  of  his  composition.  The  faces 
of  his  women  again  recall  Mabuse,  but  that  master  would  never 
have  been  guilty  of  the  inelegant  pose  of  Bathsheba’s  limbs.  The 
prominence  of  one  and  the  ugly  line  and  bad  foreshortening  of 
the  other  are  so  marked  as  to  attract  the  attention  away  from  the 
heads,  on  which  the  painter  bestowed  great  pains.  The  Lot  and  his 
Daughters  at  Vienna  (No.  991),  dated  1563,  belongs  to  the  same 
group  of  works. 

It  is  noteworthy  that  while  Annunciations,  Visitations,  Passion 
scenes,  and  the  old  round  of  subjects  are  lacking  in  the  list  of 
Jan  Massys’  works,  their  place  is  taken  by  some  subjects  which 
were  to  be  commonly  treated  by  Rembrandt  and  the  Protestant 
Dutchmen  of  the  seventeenth  century.  Beside  the  Judiths, 
Bathsheba,  and  Lot,  he  painted  pictures  of  the  Healing  of  Tobit, 
Elijah  and  the  Widow  of  Sarepta,  Elijah  and  Elisha,  and  the 
chaste  Susanna.  The  only  New  Testament  pictures  recorded  by 
him,  except  the  early  Madonna  done  under  Quentin’s  immediate 
influence  and  perhaps  in  his  studio,  are  a Virgin  and  Joseph  turned 
away  from  the  inn  at  Bethlehem,  and  the  picture  of  St.  Paul 
writing.  Here,  therefore,  we  definitely  pass  out  of  the  old  cycle 
into  the  new.  We  have  left  behind  the  mediaeval  and  come  within 
the  area  of  the  modern,  which  it  is  not  the  purpose  of  these  chapters 
to  pursue.  We  may  therefore  at  once  pass  on  from  Jan  to  his 
brother  Cornelis  Massys. 

The  date  of  Cornelis’  birth  was  probably  1513,  and  he  also  became 
a master-painter  in  the  Antwerp  Guild  in  1531,  the  same  year 
as  his  brother.  He  died  after  1579.  His  known  pictures  are  few  : 
A Prodigal  Son  in  the  Amsterdam  Museum  (No.  1528),  which  is 
signed  and  dated  1538,  and  another  of  the  same  subject  in  the 
D.  Reimer  Collection  ; a signed  genre  picture  at  Berlin  dated 
1543  ; a Jealous  Wife,  mentioned  by  Hymans  as  in  the  Camberlyn 
d’Amougies  Collection  at  Brussels,  dated  1549,  and  repeating  the 


CORNELIS  MASSYS 


338 


composition  of  one  of  his  engravings  (B.  52).  There  are  also  land- 
seapes  at  Antwerp,  Berlin  (No.  675),  and  Dessau,  of  whieh  we  shall 
have  a word  to  say  in  a later  chapter  ; that  is  all,  nor  will  I guarantee 
the  genuineness  of  every  one  of  these.  Cornelis’  engravings  are 
not  very  important.  Two  are  portraits  of  Henry  VIII  (dated 
1544  and  1548).  They  depict  the  self-indulgent  monarch  in  most 
unattractive  form,  a bloated  and  hideous  ereature,  the  self-made 
earicature  of  a human  being.  Life  eertainly  took  revenge  on  his 
looks  if  this  was  really  his  aspeet.  Other  engravings  are  after 
Raphael  and  Georg  Penez.  Several  take  us  into  the  Old  Testament 
cyele  affeeted  by  Jan.  They  seem  to  imply  that  Cornelis  led  a 
wandering  life.  Several  drawings  by  him  exist,  some  signed  with 
the  same  monogram  as  his  pietures  and  prints.  Among  them  are 
illustrations  of  the  life  of  St.  Elizabeth  and  a set  of  New  Testament 
designs  dated  1541.^  They  show  that  he  eould  wield  his  pen  with 
delicate  preeision,  and  that  he  adhered  in  his  eompositions  to 
an  old  formula.  His  landseapes  are  his  most  meritorious  work. 
In  them  he  leans  baek  on  his  father  rather  than  on  his  father’s 
friend  Patinir.  He  was  not  an  originating  artist,  and  forms  no 
link  in  any  important  chain  of  development. 

1 Von  Eelking  sale,  1902. 


23 


CHAPTER  XXIII 


JEROME  BOSCH 

Jerome  Bosch  van  Aeken  appears  to  have  taken  his  second 
surname  from  the  place  of  origin  of  his  family  (Aachen,  Aix-la- 
Chapelle),  and  his  first  from  Hertogenbosch  (Bois-le-Duc),  or 
Bosch  for  short,  where  he  was  probably  born  and  certainly  lived 
and  died.  If  he  had  not  been  a native  of  that  town  he  must  have 
paid  for  his  citizenship,  and  of  such  a purchase  there  is  no  trace. 
“ Bosch,”  wrote  Diirer  in  November  1520,  “ is  a fine  town,  and 
has  a most  beautiful  church.”  That  was  just  four  years  after 
Jerome  Bosch’s  death.  “ Insignis  pictor,”  the  local  record  calls 
him,  and  there  is  every  reason  to  suppose  that  he  was  a prosperous 
and  well-regarded  man.  That  same  church  at  Bois-le-Duc  was 
new  in  Jerome’s  day.  It  was  not  merely  a stately  building  but 
contained  many  works  of  art  of  local  make,  notably  painted  altar- 
pieces,  carved  and  gilt,  whereof  the  manufacture  and  export  was  a 
profitable  industry  in  the  place.  It  also  held  six  paintings  by  our 
master,  all  vanished  now  into  limbo. 

A striking  portrait  drawing  of  Jerome  Bosch  in  the  Arras 
Library  (f.  275)^  shows  him  in  advanced  years,  aged  certainly 
not  less  than  sixty,  even  nearer  seventy.  Hence,  as  he  died  in 
1516,  he  must  have  been  born  about  1450.  He  is  mentioned  several 
times  in  the  registers  of  the  Confraternity  of  Our  Lady  between 
1488  and  1516,  and  it  is  recorded  that  he  designed  windows  for  a 
chapel  in  the  Church  in  1493  and  painted  a Last  Judgment  for 
Philip  the  Fair  before  1504.  That  is  all  we  are  told  about  him 
by  known  documents.  The  portrait,  however,  is  an  authority  of 
the  first  importance.  The  upper  part  of  the  face  is  astonishingly 
like  Gladstone — the  same  eagle  eye  and  aspect  of  intellectual 
vigour.  Here  is  a man  of  intense  resolution,  strong,  keen,  com- 
petent, and  both  serious  and  humorous.  One  would  take  him 

1 There  is  also  a wretched  engraved  likeness  by  Philip  Galle  in  the  work  of  Lampsonius. 

334 


HIS  ORIGIN 


335 


for  a statesman  rather  than  a painter.  Life  left  upon  him  the 
authentie  stamp  of  greatness. 

At  Bois-le-Duc  was  no  important  painter’s  workshop  where 
the  young  Jerome  could  learn  his  craft.  Whither,  then,  did  he 
proceed  ? Bois-le-Duc  in  North  Brabant  lies  close  to  the  border 
of  the  old  County  of  Holland.  It  is  almost  exactly  as  far  from 
Amsterdam  as  from  Antwerp  ; Leyden  and  Delft  are  a little  nearer 
to  it,  Haarlem  is  a little  further  away.  River  traffic  led  easily 
to  Rotterdam,  but  Antwerp  was  an  overland  journey  or  a very 
roundabout  one  by  water.  Brussels  was  yet  more  remote.  In 
the  fourteen-seventies  Haarlem,  perhaps  also  Delft  and  Utrecht, 
contained  important  painters’  workshops.  It  looks  as  though  a 
Bois-le-Duc  apprentice  with  little  money  to  spend  would  have 
been  attracted  rather  to  a Dutch  than  to  a Brussels  or  Louvain 
master.  Critics  have  thought  to  observe  traces  of  the  influence 
of  Roger  and  Bouts  in  the  works  of  Bosch.  I can  discover  nothing 
of  the  kind.  Cohen  and  Friedlander  hit  the  mark  when  they 
point  to  the  Delft  Master  of  the  Virgo  inter  Virgines,  who  was  active 
by  1470  at  latest,  as  his  possible  master. 

It  is  unfortunate  that  Bosch’s  early  picture  of  the  Nativity 
is  known  to  us  only  by  copies  at  Cologne  and  Brussels,  but  they 
suffice  to  fix  its  composition.  The  Child  lies  naked  on  a little  straw 
in  a square  stone  manger,  breathed  upon  by  ox  and  ass  and  adored 
by  His  parents,  with  a shepherd  poking  his  head  round  the  corner 
in  characteristically  Bosch  fashion.  No  South  Netherlandish 
Nativity  of  the  period  is  thus  arranged,  but  it  is  the  composition 
employed  by  Geertgen  (Kaufmann  Coll.)  and  the  Virgo  Master 
(De  Somzee  Coll.).  This  suffices  to  demonstrate  Bosch’s  Dutch 
affiliation.  Other  comparisions  with  the  Virgo  Master  and  with 
Geertgen  can  be  made  by  the  student  for  himself.  Bosch,  by 
whomsoever  taught,  was  not  anyone’s  follower.  He  was  essentially 
original,  a goer  of  his  own  ways,  and  that  from  the  start.  It  is  a 
mistake  to  think  of  him  as  a caricaturist.  He  was  a naturalist ; 
but  he  sought  in  life  for  strong  and  characteristic  types.  Others 
had  done  that  before  him,  notably  Robert  Campin,  whose  queer- 
headed and  postured  folk  in  such  a picture  as  the  Madrid  Marriage 
of  the  Virgin  will  not  have  been  forgotten  by  the  student ; but  it 
was  not  Campin  who  set  Bosch  upon  the  road  he  was  to  follow. 


336 


JEROME  BOSCH 


At  the  Exhibition  of  French  Primitives  in  Paris  in  1904  a picture 
was  shown  (No.  94)  which  is  not  French  but  evidently  Dutch 
of  about  1460  to  1470.  It  belonged  to  Mr.  C.  T.  D.  Crews.  The 
subject  is  the  “ Ecce  Homo,”  and  the  style  of  the  work  is  not 
far  removed  from  that  of  the  Virgo  Master.  There  are  few  figures 
in  it,  only  eleven  in  the  foreground,  but  each  of  them  is  a character- 
study,  and  some  of  the  heads  are  of  exaggerated  though  not  unnatural 
physiognomy  such  as  Bosch  afterwards  depicted.  When  he  painted 
the  same  subject  he  also  arranged  it  on  two  different  levels,  as  in 
this  earlier  admirable  work,  and  he  likewise  wrote  the  words  pro- 
ceeding out  of  the  mouths  of  speakers  in  a line  of  Gothic  writing 
exactly  as  in  this  picture. 

A similar  spaciousness  of  composition  marks  another  early 
work  by  our  master — the  Adoration  of  the  Magi,  which  passed  from 
the  Lippmann  Collection  into  the  New  York  Gallery.  The  scene 
is  laid  within  the  ruins  of  a castle,  and  the  turf  is  as  smooth  between 
the  walls  as  in  the  aisles  of  Tintern.  In  all  this  there  is  nothing 
particularly  novel,  but  Bosch’s  incipient  quaintness  shows  in  the 
angels  overhead  and  the  great  stretch  of  canvas  they  are  spreading. 
The  landscape  background  is  also  of  the  kind  he  made  his  own, 
far-sweeping,  with  tree-foliage  in  spots  of  light,  as  it  appears  in 
autumn  when  leaves  are  dry  and  the  sun  catches  them.  The  dis- 
tance is  peopled  with  the  caravans  of  the  Three  Kings  and  other 
entertaining  little  figures,  all  doing  something,  as  in  Geertgen’s 
backgrounds,  a contrast  to  the  mainly  quiescent  background  figures 
in  those  by  South  Netherlanders. 

Another  early  Magi  picture  is  in  the  J.  G.  Johnson  Collection, 
but  here  the  building  is  a ruined  half-timbered  farm,  a kind  of 
structure  Bosch  often  introduced  henceforward.  To  match  the 
elaborate  costume  of  the  Moorish  King  one  must  go  back  to  the 
“ Jardin  d’ Amour  ” of  Philip  the  Good.  Similarly  clothed  figures 
appear  in  a Pisanello  drawing  at  Oxford  and  in  other  contemporary 
Italian  works.  The  birds  perched  on  the  roof  may  be  noticed. 
Bosch  loved  birds  and  observed  their  varieties.  He  painted  many 
and  of  many  kinds.  They  are  hardly  ever  absent  from  his  pictures. 

Van  Mander  observed  that  Bosch’s  drapery  was  not  broken 
into  the  multiplicity  of  angular  folds  affected  by  most  contemporary 
and  earlier  painters  of  the  school.  This  is  true  of  his  mature  period. 


HIS  EARLY  WORKS 


337 


but  broken  Gothic  drapery  is  one  of  the  marks  of  his  early  work. 
A notable  example  of  it  is  in  the  beautiful  John  at  Patmos  in  the 
Berlin  Museum.  The  figure  of  the  Saint  is  one  of  the  tenderest 
he  ever  painted.  He  is  shown  in  profile,  looking  up,  pen  in  hand 
ready  to  write.  The  dictating  angel  stands  on  a knoll  behind,  with 
peacock  feathers  embellishing  displayed  wings.  A flat  Maas 
landscape  spreads  away  into  the  distance.  John’s  eagle,  a 
miserably  skimpy  bird,  not  studied  from  life,  is  stowed  away  in 
a corner  of  the  foreground,  balanced  in  the  other  corner  by  a little 
devil  with  an  old  man’s  head,  the  body  and  legs  of  a sort  of  beetle, 
and  a serpentine  tail,  one  of  Bosch’s  early  adventures  into  his 
quaint  world  of  fiends.  On  the  back  of  the  panel  are  scenes  from 
the  Passion,  not  known  to  or  now  accessible  by  me.  They  may 
serve  as  link  with  the  curious  painted  table-top  in  the  Escorial.  In 
the  centre  of  that  is  an  Image  of  Pity,  around  it  scenes  from  every- 
day life  in  radiating  segmental  pictures,  illustrative  of  the  Seven 
Vices,  while  the  corners  are  filled  with  medallions  of  the  Four 
Last  Things  : Death,  Judgment,  Heaven,  and  Hell.  The  folk 
incidents  are  quite  original  and  are  intended  to  be  truthful  to  the 
appearance  and  manners  of  the  day.  They  are  freely  and  easily 
designed  by  an  artist  who  did  not  need  to  borrow  compositions  from 
anyone. 

A pair  of  wings  in  the  J.  G.  Johnson  Collection,  which  is 
unusually  rich  in  the  works  of  Bosch,  are  known  to  me  only  by 
photographs  kindly  sent  to  me  by  their  owner.  In  one  there  are 
a couple  of  adoring  Shepherds,  in  the  other  a group  of  the  Magi 
on  horseback  beholding  the  appearance  of  the  Star  in  the  East. 
Perhaps  they  belong  to  a slightly  later  period,  but  may  find  mention 
here.  They  are  at  all  events  relatively  early  works.  The  search 
for  peculiar  types  of  countenance  is  not  pronounced,  but  the 
tendency  is  visible.  The  panels  are  not  of  exactly  the  same  dimen- 
sions and  do  not  look  like  a pair  of  wings  as  the  compositions  do  not 
balance,  but  they  are  of  contemporary  make.  Both  are  admirably 
composed  and  the  play  of  emotion  that  runs  through  the  Magi 
group  endows  it  with  a vivid  sense  of  life  and  actuality.  Each 
of  the  nine  several  heads  wears  a hat  of  different  fashion,  intended 
to  suggest  Orientalism,  for  it  was  the  headgear  of  Orientals  that 
struck  the  Europeans  of  those  days  as  their  distinguishing 


338 


JEROME  BOSCH 


peculiarity.  It  was  only  necessary  to  reproduce  a turban  or  a fez 
to  impose  upon  the  popular  audience  of  a mystery-play.  The 
costumes  worn  by  actors  rather  than  actual  observation  of  rare 
visitors  from  the  East  equipped  Bosch  and  his  contemporaries 
with  designs  for  the  Wise  Men  of  the  East  and  other  Oriental 
characters.^ 

A curious  picture  called  the  “ Curse  of  Folly  ” is  not  easy 
to  place,  but  clearly  belongs  to  Bosch’s  early  period.  It  is  in  the 
Prado.  The  Dutch  say  of  an  eccentric  person,  “ He  has  a stone  in 
his  head.”  Around  the  oval  panel  on  which  the  subject  is 
painted  there  is  a legend  in  large  Gothic  letters  which  means, 
“ Sir,  cut  out  the  stone.  My  name  is  Bibbert  Das.”  The  signifi- 
cance of  the  name  escapes  us.  The  fat  fool  is  tied  into  a chair, 
and  the  operator,  who  wears  a thing  like  a metal  fool’s-cap  or  an 
inverted  funnel,  is  cutting  into  the  crown  of  his  bald  head.  A 
priest  is  encouraging  the  patient  and  holds  in  his  hand  a jug 
which  may  be  imagined  full  of  some  comforting  stimulant.  The 
goodman’s  wife  leans  on  a table  and  watches  the  progress  of 
affairs,  but  why  the  leech  should  have  chosen  the  top  of  her  head 
to  carry  his  book  (if  the  book  be  his)  instead  of  laying  it  on  the 
table  remains  a mystery.  The  group  is  simply  composed  and 
placed  in  the  open  air  before  a wide  flat  landscape.  Bosch  has 
tried  to  imagine  how  such  a performance  might  actually  have 
occurred  and  so  to  depict  it  truthfully.  The  well-painted  picture 
is  the  earliest  known  illustration  of  a proverb  in  pictorial  form. 
Such  subjects  became  popular  at  a later  date  ; with  Bosch  this  was 
a novelty.  The  picture  must  have  been  surprising  and  delightful 
to  a public  fed  up  with  Madonnas  and  the  normal  round  of  sacred 
subjects. 

The  St.  Anthony  triptych  in  the  Vienna  Gallery  shows  how 
our  artist  was  advancing.  It  may  be  regarded  as  marking  the 
transition  from  his  early  to  his  middle  period.  The  Penitence  of 
St.  Jerome  is  the  subject  of  the  central  panel ; the  wings  are  devoted 
to  St.  Anthony  and  St.  Giles.  We  have  not  yet  arrived  at  the 
complicated  and  multitudinous  compositions  which  Bosch  was  to 
produce  later  on,  but  the  signs  of  what  was  coming  are  here  apparent. 

1 Another  late  addition  to  the  J.  G.  Johnson  Colleetion  is  a Christ  among  the  Doctors, 
likewise  ascribed  to  Bosch. 


HIS  VISIONS 


339 


The  Jerome  panel  is  relatively  simple  compared  with  what  was  to 
follow,  but  even  so  the  reader  would  not  be  pleased  if  two  or  three 
pages  were  here  devoted  to  a catalogue  of  its  many  details.  Suffice 
it  to  say  that  the  Saint,  clothed  in  Gothic  drapery,  kneels  before 
what  appears  to  be  a sculptured  throne  with  a tree  growing  out 
of  it.  The  sculptures  are  evidently  intended  to  be  emblematic, 
but  of  what  I cannot  say.  One  represents  a slender  figure  (perhaps 
a skeleton)  in  the  act  of  mounting  a unicorn.  In  the  middle  distance 
is  a fanciful  arched  island  rising  out  of  water,  and  there  are  a stork 
and  beasts  and  birds.  This  bit  of  water-landscape  is  very  like  the 
work  of  Geertgen.  An  extraordinary  tree  which  turns  to  metal 
and  ends  above  in  a flaming  chimney  no  doubt  signified  something 
to  Bosch.  The  Temptation  of  St.  Anthony  on  the  left  wing  is  the 
first  of  his  many  renderings  of  this  subject.  There  are  plenty  of 
quaint  little  devils  in  the  foreground,  but  the  striking  feature  is  the 
distant  landscape  and  the  chapel  and  bridge  silhouetted  against  the 
glare  of  a destructive  fire. 

Bosch’s  landscapes,  though  full  of  details  minutely  studied  from 
nature,  are  far  indeed  from  being  transcripts  of  actual  views. 
They  are  as  imaginary  as  his  figures,  and  form  an  essential  part  of 
his  pictorial  compositions.  Every  subject  he  had  to  paint  was 
beheld  by  him  as  a complete  mental  image  provoked  by  his 
imagination.  Actual  objects  and  persons  seen  and  stored  away  in 
his  memory  were  the  materials  with  which  his  fancy  played,  and  out 
of  which  he  created  and  with  his  mind’s  eye  beheld  sights  wonderful 
and  unprecedented.  He  painted  visions  of  a world  inhabited  by 
a flora  and  fauna  of  his  own.  Landscape  with  him  is  as  much 
designed  in  relation  to  the  subject  as  are  the  figures.  In  this 
respect  Bosch  was  an  innovator.  Moreover,  in  consequence  of  his 
desire  to  fill  all  the  space  at  his  disposal  with  emblematic  comments, 
subsidiary  groups,  and  queer  incarnations,  he  wanted  his  landscape 
to  be  extensive — as  much  of  it  as  he  could  get.  He  therefore 
imagined  himself  aloft,  as  on  the  top  of  a cliff,  looking  down  upon 
a wide-spread  region.  Thus  he  came  to  eonstruct  those  panoramic 
far-extending  views  which  were  taken,  up  by  later  painters,  such  as 
Patinir,  and  are  more  commonly  associated  with  them  than  with 
their  originator.  Such  landscapes  are  not  found  in  the  pictures 
of  his  earliest  period.  They  are  common  in  his  latest. 


340 


JEROME  BOSCH 


The  Magi  triptych  in  the  Prado — an  excellent  painting — is 
a good  example  of  about  the  date  we  have  now  reached.  The 
Adoration  is  proceeding  in  front  of  a ruined,  half-timber  cottage. 
The  Kings’  caravans  appear  in  the  extensive  landscape  upon 
which  we  look  down.  Far  away  is  a wonderful  city  with  strange 
pyramidal  and  other  buildings,  perhaps  intended  to  be  Indian. 
Though  the  spectator  is  supposed  to  be  in  the  air  for  the  view,  he  is 
looking  at  the  figures  from  the  ground-level.  By  this  strained 
convention  they  occupy  the  lowest  five-fifteenths  of  the  panels, 
the  landscape  the  middle  seven-fifteenths,  and  the  sky  the  top 
three-fifteenths.  The  effect  is  not  that  of  nature,  but  it  would 
satisfy  an  unsophisticated  eye.  A like  convention  was  employed 
by  the  artists  of  China  and  Japan.  Any  convention  is  permissible 
if  the  result  pleases  the  people  for  whom  the  artist  works.  It  is 
a mistake  to  suppose  that  artists  are  tied  to  nature  or  bound  by 
optical  laws.  Art  is  absolutely  free  as  to  means  ; the  end  is  the 
test. 

In  this  picture  Peeping  Toms  are  multiplied.  One  has 
scrambled  on  to  the  roof —a  gnome  of  a fellow.  Donors  and 
saints  are  portrayed  on  the  wings  and  prove  that  Bosch  was  no 
great  portrait-painter.  Their  drapery  with  its  long  straight  line 
exemplifies  his  new  style.  Justi  remarks  on  the  peculiar  character 
of  the  gifts  offered  by  the  Kings.  The  first  has  laid  upon  the 
ground  a golden  model  of  Abraham’s  sacrifice.  The  second  offers 
something  curious  in  a pan  ; the  third  an  ostrich-egg  adorned  with 
paintings  and  surmounted  by  a hawk. 

The  maturity  of  our  artist  is  signalized  by  the  splendid  round 
picture  of  the  Crowning  with  Thorns,  which  is  in  the  Escorial. 
The  faces  are  its  striking  feature.  Later  on  Bosch  would  have 
caricatured  them  all,  but  now  he  studies  them  from  the  life.  Such 
folk  might  exist.  None  is  an  impossibility.  On  the  left  is  sharp- 
nosed Annas,  the  high-priest,  with  a crystal-headed  staff  of  office 
in  his  hand — as  mean-looking  a personage  as  can  be  imagined, 
and  comic  withal,  with  his  tuft  of  hair  pulled  out  at  a hole  in  the 
top  of  his  cap  ! The  self-satisfied  shock-headed  gentleman  along- 
side of  him  is  another  type,  thrown  into  the  shade  by  the  adjoining 
big-hatted  soldier,  a real  brute,  who  enjoys  the  pain  he  is  causing 
as  he  presses  the  thorns  into  Christ’s  head.  The  other  two  heads 


HIS  MATURITY 


341 


on  the  right  are  equally  brutal,  but  none  is  mere  brute  and  no  more. 
They  have  their  different  charaeters  and  qualities  ; each  is  a peculiar 
individual  with  brutality  added.  The  head  of  Christ  in  the  midst 
is  the  finest  Bosch  ever  attained.  It  is  more  than  that  of  a sufferer. 
He  suffers,  but  maintains  His  dignity.  Several  other  versions 
of  this  subject  are  now  generally  stated  to  be  school  imitations 
of  this  original.  I do  not  believe  it.  They  may  be  copies,  but 
behind  them  originals  existed  which  Bosch  painted  at  a later  date. 
We  shall  return  to  them  presently.  Later  versions  are  more  sum- 
mary ; this  has  been  wrought  out  with  elaborate  care.  To  the  same 
period  must  have  belonged  that  composition  of  the  Blind  leading 
the  Blind,  an  engraving  of  which  was  published  in  mid-sixteenth 
century  by  Jerome  Cock.  The  leading  blind  man,  who  is  already 
in  the  ditch,  repeats  the  type  of  a figure  in  the  Crowning  with 
Thoms.  His  fellow  is  about  to  follow  him,  while  another  ditch 
further  back  is  receiving  a second  pair.  Peter  Bruegel  was  to  take 
a suggestion  from  this,  as  we  shall  hereafter  learn.  Whether  the 
original  was  a picture  or  a drawing  is  not  recorded,  but  that  Bosch 
did  paint  pictures  of  the  misfortunes  of  the  blind  is  proved  by  the 
Royal  Spanish  Inventories. ^ 

Another  roundel,  miscalled  the  Prodigal  Son,  a most  interesting 
and  original  picture  in  the  Figdor  Collection  (Vienna),  may,  I 
think,  be  assigned  to  about  this  date.  A single,  full-length  figure 
in  the  centre  of  the  panel  holds  the  spectator’s  attention  ; all 
else  is  subsidiary.  But  is  this  really  the  Prodigal  Son  ? What 
should  he  be  doing  with  that  big  basket  on  his  back  and  the  cat’s 
skin  hanging  from  it?  It  is  a pedlar  who,  likely  enough,  had 
killed  the  cat  and  stolen  the  skin,  for  I am  sorry  to  say  that  he 
was  a thief,  and  is  painted  at  a moment  of  crime.  What  is  he  doing 
with  two  hats  ? The  one  in  his  hand  has  just  been  stolen  from 
the  hatless  and  otherwise  occupied  individual  in  the  background. 
It  is,  indeed,  a fisherman’s  hat  and  has  his  float  and  cast  pinned 
on  to  it.  The  very  long  fishing-rod  leans  up  against  the  Swan 
Inn  in  the  background.  .The  thief  is  hurrying  away  unobserved, 
for  the  barmaid  is  being  kissed  by  a soldier  and  the  old  woman  in 
the  kitchen  is  probably  poor-sighted.  An  owl  and  a dog  alone  take 
notice  of  the  crime.  Inexplicable  by  me  is  the  curious  fact  that 

^ Jahrb.  Pr.  Kss.,  1889,  pp.  141—4. 


342 


JEROME  BOSCH 


Bosch  has  given  to  his  thief  the  most  refined  face  he  ever  painted. 
One  would  have  supposed  that  here  was  a place  for  some  degraded 
type,  such  as  he  afterwards  introduced  into  many  of  his  pietures. 
It  will  be  found,  however,  that  those  types  were  a late  development 
with  him.  Even  his  devil  in  the  John  at  Patmos  has  the  face  of 
a gentleman.  A thief-pedlar,  however,  might  have  been  something 
less  of  an  aristoerat. 

So  pleased  was  Bosch  with  this  picture  that  he  reproduced 
the  central  figure  in  all  essentials  on  the  outsides  of  the  wings 
of  the  Hay-waggon  triptyeh  now  in  the  Eseorial.  The  pedlar  is 
older,  no  less  refined,  and  not  visibly  dishonest.  He  certainly 
is  taking  no  part  in  the  highway  robbery  that  is  going  on  in  the 
middle  distance,  but  appears  to  be  hurrying  away  from  so  dangerous 
a neighbourhood.  Let  us  hope  that  time  has  taught  him  honesty 
and  that  the  remote  gallows  are  not  for  him,  but  for  the  ruffianly 
robbers.  When  the  wings  are  opened  we  find  ourselves  faced 
by  one  of  Boseh’s  complicated  Allegories  or  “ Dreams,”  as  they 
were  called  in  his  day.  What  it  all  signifies  is  a problem  scareely 
worth  laborious  solution.  The  left  wing  is  devoted  to  the  Fall 
of  angels  and  men,  the  right  to  Hell ; obviously,  the  intervening 
subject  must  tell  of  sin,  its  beginning  on  the  one  hand,  its  end  on 
the  other.  Why  the  emblem  chosen  should  be  a hay-waggon, 
joyfully  dragged  Hell  wards  by  devils,  the  reader  must  diseover 
for  himself.  A crowd  of  common  folk  accompany  it  and  try  to 
climb  on,  many  of  them  falling  under  the  wheels  and  eoming  to 
grief.  A cortege  of  Pope  and  Princes  follows.  On  the  top  of  the 
hay  two  couples,  man  and  woman,  are  enjoying  themselves,  with 
a devil  in  front  blowing  a horn  and  an  angel  kneeling  behind  and 
looking  up  to  Christ  in  clouds  overhead.  There  are  also  a number 
of  people  doing  things  in  the  foreground.  The  whole  is  full  of 
fancy,  exuberant,  exhaustless.  The  devils  are  of  all  sorts — not 
so  astonishing  in  the  ingenuity  of  their  invention  as  those  Boseh 
created  later,  but  varied  enough.  Equally  great  is  the  variety 
of  the  men  and  women,  their  attitudes,  gestures,  and  eharaeters. 
Sueh  varied  dramatic  activity  had  appeared  in  no  earlier  work. 
It  is  all  Bosch’s  own  invention.  This  kind  of  pieture  was  a great 
sueeess  ; it  beeame  popular  with  wealthy  patrons,  espeeially  in 
Spain  ; the  artist  was  doubtless  soon  deluged  with  commissions 


ms  ALLEGORIES 


343 


for  more  of  such  Dreams.  He  had  hit  the  public  taste,  and  was 
now  in  a fair  way  to  become  the  popular  “ insignis  pictor  ” of  his 
epitaph. 

The  Temptation  of  St.  Anthony  triptych  at  Lisbon  and  the 
panels  of  Heaven  and  Hell  at  Venice  seem  to  be  of  about  this 
period.  The  former  was  certainly  a popular  work,  for  more  copies 
and  imitations  of  it  still  exist  than  of  any  other  picture  by  Bosch. 
The  connexion  between  it  and  the  Vienna  example  described  above 
is  slight.  The  curious  throne-like  object  has  now  grown  into  a tower 
covered  with  pictures  (the  Golden  Calf,  the  Grapes  of  Eshcol,  etc.). 
A distant  fire  is  beautifully  painted,  and  the  number  of  incidents 
has  grown  so  great  that  both  wings  also  are  full  of  them.  Queer 
devils  have  invaded  the  sky,  and  some  are  marvellously  lit  up  like 
high  cloudlets  at  sunset.  A few  exaggerated  facial  types  make 
their  appearance,  but  they  are  still  a minority.  The  horizon  line 
is  relatively  low,  and  the  whole  composition  maintains  a certain 
unity,  and  is  not  broken  to  pieces  as  in  Bosch’s  later  works  of  the 
kind.  As  for  the  meaning  of  all  the  incidents,  let  some  more 
patient  student  work  it  out.  The  whole  thing  is  like  nothing  so 
much  as  a scene  in  a modern  Revue,  and  the  logical  connexion  of  its 
parts  seems  on  about  that  level,  but  what  would  a manager  not  give 
for  the  aid  of  a designer  with  this  kind  and  degree  of  queer  fancy  ? 

Bosch  was  probably  prouder  of  his  St.  Anthony  triptych  at 
Lisbon  than  of  his  single  panel  devoted  to  the  same  Saint  in  the 
Prado,  but  the  latter  is  more  attractive  to  a modern  eye  by  reason 
of  its  relative  simplicity.  Anthony  cowers  in  the  foreground  of 
a delightful  and  restricted  landscape  with  great  trees  near  at  hand 
and  copses  further  off,  such  as  Gerard  David  afterwards  painted. 
The  little  devils  are  more  quaint  than  ever,  some  of  them  resembling 
mechanical  toys,  yet  alive.  Bosch  possessed  the  Dickens-like 
quality  of  being  able  to  make  incredible  creatures  live.  His  instinct 
for  mechanisms  would  have  made  him  much  at  home  in  the  twentieth 
century.  A fortified  Elephant,  of  which  he  drew  a design,  fore- 
told the  “ Tanks.”  His  little  fiends  here  are  small  and  mostly 
unobtrusive,  tucked  away  in  corners  or  perambulating  in  the 
distance.  Bosch  conceived  of  St.  Anthony  as  a person  like  himself, 
tortured  by  his  own  feverish  fancy  ! Even  the  chapel  in  the  back- 
ground is  fantastically  roofed. 


344 


JEROME  BOSCH 


Two  other  important  pictures  of  this  period  are  Christ  bearing 
the  Cross  in  the  Escorial  and  the  Crucifixion  of  St.  Julia  at  Vienna. 
The  nature  of  the  subject  in  each  case  involves  the  presence  of 
men  of  low  type,  but  there  is  only  a single  head  that  can  be  called 
fantastic.  Both  compositions  are  noble  in  character,  and  show 
Bosch  at  his  best.  Two  buffetings  of  Christ  are  generally  regarded 
as  the  work  of  painters  imitating  the  roundel  of  the  Crowning  with 
Thorns.  Examples  known  to  me  are  one  which  was  in  the  Magniac 
sale  (in  1892)  and  one  now  in  the  J.  G.  Johnson  Collection  (No.  353). 
The  former  certainly  is  not  and  the  latter  may  not  be  the  handi- 
work of  Bosch,  but  both  must  repeat  independent  designs  by 
him.  The  Magniac  picture  is  the  earlier  in  type  and  is  marked  by 
the  introduction  of  a head  which  is  a caricature.  In  the  Johnson 
example  the  exaggeration  of  repulsive  features  is  carried  further. 
We  are  standing  on  the  verge  of  the  last  period  of  Bosch’s  career, 
when  his  fancy  ran  riot  and  the  facial  types  it  played  with  more  and 
more  exceeded  the  limits  of  natural  forms.  The  Ecce  Homo  in  the 
Kaufmann  Collection  shows  progress  in  that  direction,  though  in  the 
blackguard  crowd  below  Bosch  may  not  have  been  intentionally 
distorting  the  human  countenance  to  the  degree  of  caricature, 
but  merely  endeavouring  to  depict  evil  men  as  he  actually  conceived 
the  worst  might  look.  In  all  three  pictures  now  under  consideration 
we  have  examples  of  hideous  faces  seen  in  profile  with  the  mouth 
like  a slit  in  a turnip,  very  characteristic  of  Bosch’s  late  works. 

In  another  Ecce  Homo  in  the  J.  G.  Johnson  Collection  (No.  353) 
the  faces  are  more  madly  evil  and  drawn  in  a yet  more  masterly 
fashion.  If  Bosch  had  carried  exaggeration  no  further  than  here, 
criticism  might  have  been  silent.  It  is  curious  that  as  he  devoted 
more  of  his  attention  and  inventiveness  to  the  vile  creatures  in 
Christ’s  surroundings  he  was  less  and  less  successful  with  the  face 
and  figure  of  Christ  Himself,  and  this  failure  is  already  notable  in 
the  Johnson  picture.  It  becomes  more  pronounced  in  the  Pilate 
washing  his  hands  at  Princeton,  N.J.,  and  the  Christ  bearing  His 
Cross  at  Ghent — two  of  the  master’s  latest  pictures  in  which 
facial  distortions  are  carried  almost  as  far  as  in  the  caricatures 
of  Leonardo.  In  the  last-mentioned  the  whole  area  of  the  picture 
is  practically  occupied  by  heads  ; in  the  other  the  amount  of 
figures  or  drapery  visible  is  unimportant. 


PLATE  XVI 


QUENTIN  MASSYS.  CARONDELET.  COLL. 
HAVE.MEYER.— p.  .328. 


2.  MASTER  OF  THE  MANSI  MAGDALEN.— p.  320. 


3.  JEROME  BOSCH.  THE  PEDLAR.  COLL. 
FIGDOR.— p.  341. 


4.  JEROME  BOSCH.  ECCE  HOMO. 
PHILADELPHIA.— p.  344. 


[To  face  page  344. 


HIS  LATE  PERIOD 


345 


The  Last  Judgment  in  the  Academy  at  Vienna  is  practically 
a “ Dream  ” picture.  The  Paradise  wing  retains  a good  deal  of 
charm,  but  the  Judgment  and  the  Hell  are  a mass  of  unrelated 
groups  and  details  full  of  ingenuity  and  wild  fancy  but  lacking 
pictorial  cohesion.  They  might  be  cut  up  into  a score  of  separate 
pictures,  almost  with  profit.  The  Pleasures  of  the  World  triptych 
at  the  Escorial  is  wilder,  fuller  of  strange  conceits  beyond 
counting.  In  the  background  are  astonishing  contraptions  which 
might  be  fountains  or  buildings  or  excrescences  of  rock  and  tree 
gone  wrong.  We  are  further  than  ever  from  nature,  and  the  Dream 
has  become  the  wildest  kind  of  nightmare.  A strange  erection 
of  similar  type  surmounts  the  peculiar  Temple  from  which  Christ 
is  driving  forth  the  money-changers  in  the  picture  belonging  to 
Sir  Claude  Phillips.  If  the  actual  painting  of  that  work  was  not 
done  by  Bosch  the  design  was  certainly  his,  and  surely  no  one 
will  deny  the  pictorial  quality  of  the  whole.  Small  wonder  that 
these  astonishing  compositions  attracted  people  in  a day  little 
used  to  such  revolutionary  originality.  Nowadays  nothing  of 
the  kind  can  surprise  us,  but  at  the  close  of  the  Middle  Age  when 
tradition  was  very  strong,  and  it  required  a world-upheaval  to 
escape  from  the  bondage  of  scholastic  formula,  the  originality 
and  unconventionalism  of  Bosch  must  have  seemed  astonishing. 
It  is  no  less  remarkable  that  his  innovations  did  not  interfere 
with  his  orthodoxy  in  the  opinion  of  the  authorities  of  his  day. 
Long  after  he  was  dead  the  question  was  raised  whether  in  fact 
his  pictures  were  heretical.  It  was  replied  that  they  could  not 
be  because  the  grim  and  gloomy  Philip  II  of  Spain  had  hung 
with  them  the  rooms  in  which  he  lived  and  died.  Nor  was  he  the 
only  princely  admirer  of  Bosch’s  works.  They  enjoyed  a wide 
popularity  in  the  artist’s  lifetime,  and  were  sought  after  both 
in  Italy  and  Spain,  especially  in  Spain.  Justi  has  found  mention 
of  no  less  than  thirty-six  in  Royal  possession. 

The  engravings  which  Alart  du  Hameel  (ob.  1509)  made  from 
Bosch’s  designs  brought  his  art  into  the  homes  of  middle-class 
folk.  As  late  as  the  advanced  sixteenth  century  the  enterprising 
Antwerp  publisher  of  engravings,  Jerome  Cock,  had  no  small 
success  with  the  issue  of  prints  made  after  Bosch’s  drawings  and 
pictures.  Bosch  must  have  been  a prolific  draughtsman.  Existing 


346 


JEROME  BOSCH 


drawings  by  him  are  many.  Several  are  reproduced  in  Paul  Lafond’s 
work  on  the  master.  No  one,  however,  has  yet  devoted  the  needed 
research  to  draw  up  a complete  list  and  distinguish  between  the 
genuine  and  the  false.  Thus  an  excellent  drawing  of  a festivity 
in  a peasant’s  house  or  inn,  which  is  in  the  Albertina,  has  been 
twice  reproduced  as  by  Bosch.  The  composition  is  his,  and  an 
engraving  of  it  was  published  by  Cock,  but  the  drawing  in  question 
is  not  by  him.  There  is  a genuine  study  for  part  of  it  in  the 
British  Museum  depicting  a disgusting  episode  of  drunkenness. 
The  draughtsman  has  introduced  a fool’s  bauble  behind  the  sufferer, 
and  this  same  bauble  lies  in  the  foreground  of  the  engraving,  but 
does  not  appear  at  all  in  the  Albertina  drawing,  which  is  the  work 
of  a clever  sixteenth  century  copyist,  and  used  to  be  attributed 
to  Peter  Bruegel. 

A slight  and  much  damaged  pen-and-ink  drawing  in  the  Louvre 
is  interesting  as  an  idea  for  a picture  of  a Charlatan  performing 
the  Three  Thimble  and  Pea  trick  at  a village  fair  before  a group 
of  stupid  and  astonished  yokels.  An  entertaining  picture  of  the 
same  subject  (a  composition  obviously  connected  with  the  drawing) 
is  in  the  Municipal  Museum  at  St.  Germain-en-Laye,  and  has  been 
ascribed  to  Bosch.  There  was  also  a variation  of  it  with  added 
incidents  in  the  Crespi  Collection  (Milan).  Neither  is  now  accepted 
as  genuine,  but  they  must  represent  a lost  original.  Similarly, 
a Louvre  drawing  and  a picture  closely  corresponding  to  it  in  the 
Benoit  Collection  in  Paris  represent  a lost  picture  of  a jollification 
in  a boat  dating  from  Bosch’s  middle  period. 

His  life  was  long  and  active  and  he  was  a prolific  painter,  yet 
the  number  of  his  extant  pictures  does  not  exceed  thirty,  although 
a great  many  reached  the  relative  safety  of  important  royal 
and  other  collections  at  an  early  date.  The  reason  is  that  he  fre- 
quently painted  in  tempera  upon  linen,  a process  of  short  durability. 
Even  his  panels  are  thinly  painted.  He  was  too  exuberant  to  be 
willing  to  spend  the  time  on  a picture  which  the  method  in  general 
vogue  then  involved.  A fair  number  of  works  by  him,  now  lost, 
are  commemorated  by  copies,  but  these  have  not  yet  been 
critically  sorted  out  from  the  imitations  intended  to  be  in  his 
style  made  in  numbers  by  such  second-rate  artists  as  Jan  Mandijn 
and  Peter  Huys. 


HIS  IMITATORS 


347 


With  Bosch  at  second-hand  we  need  not  here  concern  ourselves. 
Enough  of  his  genuine  work  survives  to  enable  us  to  appraise  him 
as  a man,  and  the  important  contribution  he  made  to  the  art 
treasures  of  his  country  and  the  traditions  of  the  school.  As  a 
landscape  painter  he  was  influential  upon  his  contemporaries. 
As  a painter  of  genre  his  influence  was  stronger  after  he  had  been 
dead  for  many  years  than  during  his  lifetime.  One  of  his  highest 
glories  is  the  parental  art-relation  in  which  he  stood  to  the  great 
Peter  Bruegel.  Of  that  we  shall  have  more  to  say  hereafter. 
Here  we  have  been  concerned  only  with  his  own  works,  and  it  is 
with  unusual  reluctance  that  we  take  leave  of  a painter  so  refresh- 
ingly original  compared  with  the  dreary  traditionalists  who  have 
occupied  so  much  of  our  attention. 


CHAPTER  XXIV 


JOACHIM  DE  PATINIR  AND  HIS  FOLLOWERS 

Few  facts  are  known  about  Joachim  de  Patinir’s  life.  He  was 
probably  born  at  Bouvignes  ‘ about  the  year  1475.  In  1515  he 
bought  the  freedom  of  the  Antwerp  painters’  guild,  and  in  1520 
a house  in  the  Rue  Courte  I’Hopital  in  that  city.  There  Diirer 
visited  him.  The  two  artists  must  have  got  on  well  together, 
for  there  are  several  references  to  Joachim  in  Diirer’s  diary.  Thus 
in  August  1520  he  writes  : “ Master  Joachim  has  once  dined  with 
me  and  his  apprentice  once.^  I made  a tinted  drawing  for  the 
painters.  . . . Master  Joachim’s  apprentice  has  again  dined 
with  me.  I gave  Master  Joachim  one  florin’s  worth  of  prints  for 
lending  me  his  apprentice  and  his  colours,  and  I gave  his  apprentice 

three (?)  worth  of  prints.”  In  March  1521  he  notes,  “ I dined 

with  Master  Adriaen  [HoreboutsJ,  Secretary  to  the  Council  of 
Antwerp,  and  he  gave  me  the  little  panel  painted  by  Master  Joachim; 
it  represents  Lot  with  his  Daughters.”  Next  month  he  records 
having  “ drawn  with  the  metal-point  the  portrait  of  Master  Joachim 
and  made  him  another  likeness  beside  with  the  metal-point.”  The 
portrait  drawing  is  not  known  to  exist,  but  the  engraved  likeness 
of  Patinir,  wrongly  attributed  by  Bartsch  to  Diirer  (B.  108),  was 
probably  copied  from  it.  The  aspect  of  that  is  our  only  authority 
for  the  approximate  date  of  Patinir’s  birth.  A few  days  later 
(May  5)  we  read,  “ Master  Joachim,  the  good  landscape  painter, 

1 Friedlander  points  out  this  confusion  between  Joachim  and  Henry  Patinir  in  Van 
Mander’s  account  : Joachim  Patinir  was  born  at  Dinant  according  to  Van  Mander, 
at  Bouvignes  according  to  Guicciardini.  Henry  Patinir  was  born  at  Bouvignes  according 
to  Van  Mander,  at  Dinant  aecording  to  Guicciardini.  Van  Mander  states  (in  his 
second  edition)  that  Joachim  Patinir  became  a Master  at  Antwerp  in  1535  (instead  of 
1515)  ; it  was  Henry  Patinir  who  became  Master  in  1535.  Henry  Patinir  may  be 
Herri  met  de  Bles  and  may  have  been  Joachim’s  nephew. 

2 Thus  Patinir  did  have  at  least  one  apprentice  in  Antwerp,  notwithstanding  the 
silence  of  the  guild  books.  This  is  not  the  only  instance  of  their  incompleteness  m 
entering  the  names  of  apprentices. 


348 


PATINIR  AND  DURER 


349 


asked  me  to  his  wedding  [his  second  marriage],  and  showed  me  all 
honour  ; and  I saw  two  fine  plays  there,  and  the  first  was  especially 
pious  and  devout,”  We  may  easily  guess  that  that  second  likeness 
which  Durer  drew  for  his  friend  was  of  the  lady  so  soon  to  be  his 
bride.  A fortnight  afterward  Durer  drew  for  Joachim  “ four  small 
St.  Christophers  on  grey  paper  ” touched  with  white.  A pen-and- 
ink  drawing,  dated  1521,  in  the  Berlin  Print  Room,  with  nine 
St.  Christophers  sketched  on  it,  may  be  connected  with  this  possibly 
more  finished  design.  The  obvious  intention  was  that  Patinir 
should  introduce  the  figures  into  the  foreground  of  landscapes  he 
contemplated  painting.  Finally,  in  June,  shortly  before  Durer 
started  away  to  return  home,  he  gave  his  friend  a set  of  prints  by 
Hans  Baldung.  Patinir  died  three  years  later,  in  1524. 

As  Patinir  did  not  settle  at  Antwerp  till  he  was  about  forty 
years  of  age,  he  must  have  received  his  education  and  practised 
his  art  for  fifteen  years  or  so  elsewhere.  His  pictures  bear  traces 
of  the  influence  of  two  masters,  Jerome  Bosch  and  Gerard  David, 
but  how  and  in  what  order  these  influences  were  applied  we  can 
only  infer,  Bois-le-Duc,  up  against  Holland,  and  Bouvignes  on 
the  Meuse,  lie  very  far  apart,  and  Bruges  is  not  much  nearer. 
It  is  worthy  of  remark,  as  pointed  out  originally  by  Weale,  that 
the  name  inscribed  immediately  above  Patinir’s  in  the  Antwerp 
guild-books  is  Gerard  David’s.  The  two  may  have  gone  to 
Antwerp  together  ; Patinir  may  have  been  David’s  assistant  and 
worked  especially  on  his  landscape  backgrounds.  Under  that 
supposition,  did  David  employ  him  because  he  was  a useful  land- 
scape background  man  ? Or  did  he  become  proficient  in  landscape 
as  the  result  of  David’s  teaching  ? Such  questions  are  easy  to 
ask,  but  convincing  answers  are  hard  to  come  by.  In  and  after 
Patinir’s  mature  days  a group  of  artists,  mainly  Mosan,  distinguished 
themselves  as  landscape  painters.  That  is  not  a surprising  fact, 
for  it  was  the  Mosan  Hubert  van  Eyck  who  invented  landscape  art. 
Patinir  may  have  brought  his  particular  faculty  with  him  to  Bruges 
and  enriched  and  developed  it  there  in  David’s  workshop. 

If  we  take  the  half-length  Virgin  in  a landscape  which  belongs 
to  Mr.  Heseltine  as  an  early  work  by  Patinir  * we  may  conclude  from 

1 Hulin  thinks  it  one  of  his  latest  works,  but  this  seems  to  me  quite  impossible.  If 
it  be  by  Patinir  at  all,  it  must  be  very  early.  The  type  of  the  Virgin  recalls  the  early 

24 


350 


JOACHIM  DE  PATINIR  AND  HIS  FOLLOWERS 


it  that  his  first  landscapes  possessed  no  very  marked  qualities  of 
their  own,  but  resembled  the  ordinary  backgrounds  of  the  date. 
Here  we  do  not  meet  with  David’s  rock-cliffs  and  the  gently  domed, 
down-like  surfaces  above  them  ; nor  is  there  a river  or  any  sweep 
of  vision  over  a wide  expanse.  In  fact,  in  this  picture  there  is 
little  trace  of  influence  by  Gerard  David  and  none  by  Jerome 
Bosch.  From  it  we  should  conclude  that  Patinir  was  apprenticed 
to  neither  of  these  artists.  On  the  other  hand,  if  we  cast  an  eye 
down  the  succession  of  David’s  pictures  we  find  in  the  Virgin  of 
the  J.  P.  Morgan  Collection,  which  was  painted  about  1510,  a 
landscape  differing  from  those  that  had  gone  before.  Moreover, 
in  this  picture  the  basket  makes  its  appearanee  for  the  first  time, 
lying  on  the  groundbeside  the  Virgin;  and  it  is  important  to  observe 
that  this  same  basket,  though  not  found  in  the  original  Madonna 
by  David  which  is  in  the  Stoop  Collection,  is  introduced  into  a 
copy  of  it  which  belonged  to  Don  Pablo  Bosch  and  another  at 
Antwerp  (No.  47).  The  copyist  may  have  been  Patinir.  A similar 
basket  appears  also  in  Patinir’s  own  pictures,  such  as  the  Rests 
by  the  Way  at  Berlin,  and  in  the  Prado,  another  at  Brussels  with 
figures  by  Joos  van  Cleve,  and  the  Kaufmann  triptych.  The  picture 
last  mentioned  is  in  close  relation  with  Bruges  art  of  the  early 
sixteenth  century.  The  saint  on  the  sinister  wing  might  almost 
have  stepped  out  of  the  Grimani  Breviary,  and  the  John  Baptist 
is  only  a degree  removed  from  Memling.  The  St.  Christopher  at 
Madrid  is  in  type  and  scale  likewise  reminiscent  of  the  same  giant 
in  the  Grimani  manuscript. 

The  Preaching  of  John  the  Baptist  which  was  in  the  Peltzer 
Collection,  and  to  a less  degree  the  signed  Baptism  at  Vienna,  may 
preserve  a definite  reminiscence  of  David’s  Baptism,  which  was 
finished  about  1502.  The  remarkable  landscape  in  that  picture 
was  clearly  David’s  own,  and  marked  a decided  advance  in  the 
study  of  nature.  In  David’s  studio,  at  the  time  when  work  was 
being  done  on  the  central  panel,  there  must  have  been  much  talk 
about  landscape  and  about  the  careful  drawing  of  plants  and  flowers 
from  nature — subjects  then  very  interesting  to  the  best  painters 

Cologne  School  with  the  pointed  forehead  disproportionately  high  in  relation  to  the 
features.  Its  globular  form  resembles  the  type  employed  by  Mostaert.  The  attribution 
of  the  picture  to  Patinir  is,  to  say  the  least,  doubtful. 


PATINIR  AND  DAVID 


351 


and  miniaturists  in  Bruges.  We  know  from  the  lawsuits  of  Albert 
Cornells  that  a master-painter  was  only  tied  down  by  his  contract 
to  paint  the  flesh-parts  in  his  picture,  and  might  employ  assistants 
for  the  rest,  that  is  to  say,  for  draperies  and  landscapes.  It  is 
hardly  likely  that  David,  then  a very  busy  artist,  would  have  failed 
to  use  such  liberty  in  the  actual  painting  of  so  considerable  a land- 
scape background  as  that  behind  his  Baptism.  If  he  did  so,  and 
if  in  fact  Patinir  was  his  assistant,  it  is  on  this  very  background  that 
he  may  first  have  been  employed.  That  would  account  for  the 
reminiscences  of  it  observable  in  the  pictures  I have  named,  especially 
in  the  Peltzer  panel,  where  the  preaching  goes  on  under  a clump  of 
trees,  such  as  David  invented.  The  resemblance  in  the  Vienna 
picture,  which  is  later,  is  less  close. 

As  long  as  Patinir  worked  on  the  backgrounds  of  David’s 
pictures  he  would  have  been  carrying  out  David’s  designs,  not  his 
own.  If,  however,  David  at  any  time  allowed  Patinir  to  design 
as  well  as  paint  landscape  backgrounds  for  him,  I should  look  for 
them  in  such  pictures  as  the  Salting  St.  Jerome  and  the  J.  P.  Morgan 
Rest  by  the  Way.  The  contrast  between  the  landscapes  behind 
the  Salting  and  Frankfurt  Jeromes  by  David  is  striking,  the  latter 
being  as  characteristic  of  David  as  the  former  is  the  reverse.  When 
David  returned  from  Antwerp,  leaving  Patinir  behind  to  settle 
down  there,  the  pictures  which  issued  from  the  Bruges  workshop 
were  markedly  devoid  of  extensive  landscape  backgrounds.  Not 
till  we  come  to  the  National  Gallery  Magi  (wrongly  called  a mere 
school  picture)  do  we  find  one  again,  and  that  is  in  its  important 
part  a copy  of  the  village  background  used  by  David  in  the  paintings 
of  his  earliest  Dutch  period.  In  his  latest  pictures,  the  Dingwall 
Descent  and  the  Berlin  Crucifixion,  landscapes  appear  once  more, 
but  of  a new  type  and  perhaps  marking  the  engagement  of  a 
new  landscape  assistant.  For  the  foregoing  reasons  it  seems  to  me 
probable  that  Patinir  spent  the  years  approximately  from  1500 
to  1515  in  the  employ  of  Gerard  David,  If  that  were  so,  it  would 
explain  why  so  few  independent  works  by  him  are  discoverable 
which  can  be  assigned  to  a pre-Antwerp  period.  The  Heseltine 
Virgin  (?),  the  Kaufmann  triptych,  the  Peltzer  Preaching,  the  Prado 
Rest  by  the  Way,  and  possibly  the  Johnson  Assumption  of  the 
Virgin,  may  be  grouped  together  as  perhaps  made  at  Bruges.  I 


352 


JOACHIM  DE  PATINIR  AND  HIS  FOLLOWERS 


should  also  add  that  Patinir  once  at  least  co-operated  with  Isenbrant, 
who  copied  for  him  some  figures  in  a Diirer  design  to  whieh  he 
added  the  landseape.  The  picture,  which  I have  not  seen,  is  a 
Flight  into  Egypt,  and  was  in  the  Thiem  Colleetion  at  San  Remo. 

We  assume  that  when  Patinir  arrived  in  Antwerp  he  had  had 
little  experience  in  the  design  and  composition  of  figure  subjects. 
Perhaps  it  was  now  that  he  painted  the  remarkable  picture  in  the 
Wesendonk  Collection  (Bonn)  which  is  a landscape  pure  and  simple, 
peopled  only  by  small  figures  of  huntsmen  and  lovers  in  the  fore- 
ground and  with  tiny  masses  of  soldiers  further  baek  storming 
a castle  and  looting  a village.  Here  we  meet  with  what  anyone 
would  call  a typical  Patinir  view,  beheld  from  a high  standpoint 
and  ranging  over  a wide  and  deep  extent  of  hilly  eountry.  Some 
particular  military  event  may  be  eommemorated.  The  scene  is 
full  of  incident  and  detail,  so  that  the  speetator  can,  as  it  were, 
wander  about  in  the  picture  with  continual  entertainment.  Yet 
the  pietorial  quality  of  the  whole  is  not  lost.  One  wonders  why, 
when  Patinir  had  thus  hit  upon  a kind  of  subject  altogether  suited 
to  his  tastes  and  powers,  he  did  not  confine  himself  theneeforward 
to  paintings  of  this  type.  Probably  purchasers  were  still  in  the 
bondage  of  habit,  and  though  they  liked  landseapes  they  also  felt 
it  proper  that  their  pictures  should  carry  religious  titles.  The 
presence  of  the  basket  in  the  Rests  by  the  Way  at  Berlin  and  in 
the  J.  G.  Johnson  Collection  suggests  that  these  also  cannot  have 
been  painted  long  after  Patinir  left  Bruges.  In  the  latter  we  again 
meet  with  a regiment  of  soldiers.  The  influence  of  Antwerp  is 
perhaps  manifested  in  the  jutting  and  rather  fantastic  rocks  which 
rise  into  the  sky  and  were  intended  to  produce  a romantic  effect. 
In  both  pictures  they  are  employed  tentatively.  For  the  Berlin 
“ Rest,”  Patinir  borrowed  the  figures  of  the  Virgin  and  Child  from 
Robert  Campin,  repeating  in  futile  fashion  in  the  open  air  the  gesture 
of  the  Virgin  holding  forth  her  hand  to  warm  it  at  a fire.  This 
is  a proof,  if  proof  were  needed,  how  desperately  hard  up  for 
invention  our  artist  was  when  figures  were  in  question.  He  could 
manage  little  figures  in  the  distance  like  the  companies  of  soldiers. 
It  was  those  on  a large  scale  in  the  foreground  that  were  too  mueh 
for  him.  A crowd  of  small  figures  violently  active  animates  the 
middle  distance  of  a Martyrdom  of  St.  Catherine  which  exists  in  two 


PATINIR  AT  ANTWERP 


353 


versions.  The  original  passed  through  the  hands  of  Mr.  Langton 
Douglas  and  has  been  lost  sight  of.  The  other,  a school  replica 
with  some  variations,  is  in  Vienna  Museum  (No.  1093).  The  view 
is  from  high  ground  looking  down  upon  a fortified  place  on  the 
banks  of  an  estuary,  of  course  with  jutting  rocks,  but  the  composition 
is  not  forced,  nor  is  the  distance  unduly  flattened  out. 

Soon  after  Patinir  was  settled  in  Antwerp  he  must  have  formed 
good  relations  with  several  of  the  prominent  figure-painters  there, 
including  the  greatest,  Quentin  Massys.  The  two  co-operated 
in  a picture  of  the  Temptation  of  St.  Anthony  which  is  in  the 
Prado,  and  Patinir  evidently  exerted  himself  to  make  the  back- 
ground worthy  of  his  distinguished  partner.  A Rest  by  the  Way 
in  the  Minneapolis  Institute  of  Arts  ^ likewise  appears  to  exemplify 
the  co-operation  of  the  same  pair,  but  in  this,  according  to  Fried- 
lander,  the  landscape  is  copied  from  the  middle  panel  of  the  Kauf- 
mann  triptych,  with  alterations  which  are  not  in  the  manner  of 
Patinir,  so  that  Quentin  may  here  have  availed  himself  of  the 
assistance  of  one  of  Patinir’s  pupils.  Quentin  himself  was  a 
considerable  innovator  in  landscape,  as  we  have  seen,  and  the  two 
artists  must  have  had  at  least  one  keen  interest  in  common.  The 
Master  of  the  Half-lengths,  according  to  Friedlander,  painted 
the  figures  in  three  existing  landscapes  by  Patinir —a  Virgin  at 
Copenhagen,  a John  at  Patmos  in  the  National  Gallery,  and  a 
INIagi  at  Munich.  Van  Mander  knew  of  a picture  in  which  Joos 
van  Cleve  and  Patinir  co-operated.  Though  that  has  disappeared, 
a “ Rest  ” in  the  Brussels  Gallery  (with  the  basket)  has  been 
pointed  out  as  a plain  instance  of  such  co-operation.  The  trouble 
about  it  is,  according  to  Friedlander,  that  this  is  no  isolated 
instance  of  a landscape  of  Patinir’s  type  in  one  of  Joos’  pictures, 
but  that  his  landscapes  generally  are  such  ; from  which  we  may 
conclude  either  that  he  painted  landscapes  in  close  imitation  of 
Patinir,  or  that  Patinir  painted  several  landscapes  for  him.  We 
shall  return  to  this  question  hereafter.  Finally,  as  was  stated 
above,  when  Diirer  was  in  Antwerp,  Patinir,  if  he  could  not  get 
him  to  paint  foreground  figures  for  him,  succeeded  at  least  in 
extracting  from  him  four  designs  of  St.  Christopher.  If  he  used 
them  the  pictures  are  not  now  forthcoming. 

^ Reproduced  in  the  Bulletin  of  the  Institute  for  November  1914. 


354 


JOACHIM  DE  PATINIR  AND  HIS  FOLLOWERS 


It  must  have  been  at  Antwerp  that  Patinir  came  in  contact 
with  the  work  of  Jerome  Bosch  and  was  considerably  impressed 
by  it.  Without  that  impression  he  would  never  have  painted 
the  Heaven  and  Hell  which  is  in  the  Prado.  These  regions  occupy 
the  two  sides  of  the  picture  and  are  separated  by  the  broad  Styx, 
stretching  straight  away  into  the  distance,  with  Charon  ferrying 
a wretched  little  individual  across.  Hell  is  a simplified  Bosch 
with  a David  wood  in  the  foreground ; Heaven  an  undulating 
country  mounting  upward  from  low  woods  in  which  white  angels 
roam.  A great  crystal  fountain  rising  out  of  it  feeds  the  lagoon. 
Bosch  again  counts  for  a good  deal  in  the  St.  Jerome  at  the  Prado 
and  that  belonging  to  Mr.  Henry  Oppenheimer,  while  the  ruinous 
half-timber  hut  and  the  upper  chamber  in  the  branches  of  a tree 
in  the  Escorial  St.  Christopher  might  have  come  out  of  one  of  his 
pictures. 

Though  Patinir’s  surviving  pictures  are  few,  the  number 
attributed  to  him  in  the  catalogues  of  galleries  and  sales  is  large. 
Most  are  the  work  of  imitators,  a proof  of  the  artist’s  popularity 
and  influence  upon  contemporary  craftsmen.  He  was  less  of  an 
innovator  in  landscape  than  has  generally  been  supposed.  There 
is  little  in  any  work  of  his  that  had  not  been  previously  accom- 
plished by  Jerome  Bosch,  David,  or  Quentin  Massys,  but  what 
they  did  incidentally  he  did  professionally.  He  summed  up  and 
gave  currency  to  the  new  style,  and  his  views,  instead  of  being 
subsidiary  to  the  figures  in  the  fdreground,  reduced  such  figures 
to  minor  importance.  It  is  impossible  here  to  devote  more  than 
a few  lines  to  Patinir’s  many  imitators.  To  draw  a clear  distinction 
between  them  and  the  painters  who  treated  landscape  according 
to  what  soon  became  a general  convention  is  hardly  possible.  We 
may  say  that  Patinir  fixed  that  convention  and  gave  it  currency. 
It  is  of  interest  to  observe  how  it  was  utilized  and  by  what  further 
developments  it  was  followed. 

There  is  in  the  National  Gallery  a well-known  river-view 
probably  on  the  Meuse,  a landscape  pure  and  simple,  of  higher  merit 
than  any  up  to  that  time  painted.  It  used  to  be  ascribed  to  Patinir 
as  a matter  of  course,  but  he  did  not  paint  it,  nor  has  the  name 
of  its  author  yet  been  revealed.  The  suggestion  that  he  may 
have  been  Hans  van  der  Elburcht  is  unacceptable.  He  was  an 


HENRY  PATINIR 


855 


inferior  painter  who  adopted  Patinir’s  conventions — ^the  foreground 
wood,  the  isolated  slender  tree  in  front,  land  undulating  down  to 
water,  rocks  leaning  over  to  one  side,  and  so  forth.  Thus  we 
judge  from  his  single  known  picture,  a small  predella  panel  with 
the  Fishing  of  St.  Peter,  once  part  of  the  altar-piece  of  the  Fisher- 
men in  Antwerp  Cathedral.  A better  artist  than  this  Hans  was 
Lucas  Gassel  of  Helmond,  who  worked  perhaps  in  Brussels,  perhaps 
also  in  Antwerp.  He  was  a few  years  younger  than  Patinir,  and 
a harder,  heavier  painter.  He  adopted  Patinir’s  exaggerated  rocks 
jutting  up  into  points,  but  clothed  them  with  a sparse  vegetation, 
and  treated  the  wide-extending  parts  of  his  views  in  a more  sum- 
mary fashion,  making  them  appear  to  contain  far  more  details 
than  a closer  inspection  reveals.  The  suggestion  is  made  in  a 
later  chapter  that  he  painted  the  landscape  backgrounds  in  at 
least  two  of  Joos  van  Cleve’s  pictures.  Quentin  Massys’  son 
Cornelis  likewise  devoted  attention  to  landscape,  and  there  are 
signed  examples  of  his  work  in  this  kind  in  the  Galleries  at  Antwerp, 
Berlin,  and  Dessau.  It  is  scarcely  correct  to  call  them  imitations 
of  Patinir.  The  Antwerp  example  shows  a wide  vista  hedged  by 
fantastic  rocks  but  the  land-forms  are  for  the  most  part  carefully 
studied  from  nature  and  the  blending  of  buildings  with  them  is 
well  effected.  The  style  is  borrowed  rather  from  Quentin  than 
from  Patinir. 

“ Herri  met  de  Bles,”  who  was  probably  the  above-mentioned 
Henry  Patinir  of  Bouvignes,  has  been  stripped — he  and  his  supposed 
school — of  the  multitude  of  Mannerist  pictures  to  which  we  shall 
hereafter  devote  a chapter.  He  remains  a very  ragged  torso  in 
much  need  of  the  restoration  which  students  will,  no  doubt,  presently 
effect.  Van  Mander  professes  to  know  little  about  him  except 
what  his  then  existing  pictures  could  tell,  and  they  were  “ mostly 
landscapes  patched  about  with  trees,  rocks,  and  towns  and  peopled 
with  numerous  figures.  He  made,”  adds  our  author,  “ a number 
of  little  pictures.”  They  were  marked  by  patience  and  ease  in  the 
execution.  He  records  that  this  artist’s  pictures  were  widely 
scattered,  especially  in  Italy,  where  he  enjoyed  much  celebrity, 
and  that  the  Emperor  possessed  some  of  them.  Were  the  four 
landscapes  now  at  Vienna  (Nos.  667,  670,  671,  672)  of  that  number  ? 
Van  Mander  knew  of  a large  landscape  in  which  a pedlar  was  asleep 


356 


JOACHIM  DE  PATINIR  AND  HIS  FOLLOWERS 


under  a tree  and  monkeys  were  pillaging  his  pack.  Peter  Bruegel 
made  a drawing  of  this  subject  which  Jerome  Cock  had  engraved 
and  published  ; and  there  exists  at  Dresden  (No.  806)  a painting 
which  may  be  the  very  one  mentioned  by  Van  Mander.  It  contains 
an  owl  in  a hole  in  a tree-trunk,  and  that  is  stated  to  have  been  the 
artist’s  mark,  though  it  frequently  occurs  in  pictures  with  which 
he  had  no  connexion. 

Among  pictures  in  Italian  Galleries  attributed  to  him  on  reason- 
able grounds  we  may  mention  a landscape  with  miners  at  work, 
in  the  Uffizi  (No.  730) ; also  four  pictures  at  Naples — John  bap- 
tizing, Christ  walking  on  the  water,  and  two  of  the  Good  Samaritan. 
None  of  these  pictures  are  known  to  me.  A Preaching  of  John 
Baptist  at  Brussels  (No.  40)  from  the  Schonlank  sale  (1896),  a 
St.  Christopher  which  was  shown  at  Diisseldorf  in  1904  (No.  189),  a 
Good  Samaritan  in  Namur  Museum,  and  a hill-side  view  in  a Cologne 
sale  (Nov.  1901,  No.  53)  may  likewise  be  mentioned  as  forming  with 
the  preceding  a body  of  work  apparently  homogeneous  and  reason- 
ably attributable  to  this  master.  Of  the  foregoing,  the  pictures 
which  appear  to  be  the  earlier,  such  as  the  Vienna  Rest  by  the  Way 
(No.  667),  approximate  in  style  to  Joachim  de  Patinir’s,  and  con- 
firm the  impression  that  our  artist  was  his  pupil,  but  as  he  advanced 
in  years  he  developed  a style  of  his  own  which  approximates  to 
that  exemplified  by  Lucas  Gassel.  He  multiplies  detail  to  a fussy 
extent,  indulges  in  fantastic  rocks  and  such  impossibilities  as 
hills  perforated  by  a supposedly  natural  arch  or  tunnel.  In  the 
St.  Christopher  of  the  Brenken  Collection  (Diisseldorf  Exhibition) 
the  figure  of  the  Saint  is  copied  from  Diirer,  but  the  landscape 
is  all  his  own.  It  shows  us  a strait  or  fiord  shut  in  by  jutting  hills. 
A storm  rages  on  the  water  (though  not  in  the  trees),  and  threatens 
to  wreck  a ship,  while  others  lie  calmly  at  anchor.  A whale  drawn 
up  on  the  shore  is  being  flensed.  The  composition  is  more  crowded 
and  enclosed  than  usual  in  landscapes  of  that  age.  The  artist’s 
desire  was  to  realize  romance,  and  that  must  be  counted  unto  him 
for  merit.  The  Cologne  picture  is  more  abnormal,  and  more 
modern.  Such  figures  as  it  contains  have  to  be  sought  for,  so 
unimportant  are  they.  The  subject  is  just  a hill-side  scene  between 
trees  sloping  up  to  a domed  wooded  summit.  There  are  open 
patches  of  grass  and  there  is  a cottage,  but  otherwise  naught  save 


PLATE  XVII 


LUCAS  GASSEL.  ST.  JEROME.  COLL.  N’U[..\ND.—p.  355.  4.  HENRA'  P.ATIN IR  (?).  COLL.  VON  BRENKEX.—p.  356. 

[To  lace  page  356. 


MATHIAS  COCK 


357 


the  sky  above.  The  painter  intended  to  make  an  untortured 
transeript  of  nature.  It  was  a novel  experiment. 

Aeeording  to  Van  Mander,  Mathias  Cock,  who  was  elder  brother 
of  the  better  remembered  Jerome  Cock,  and  son  of  the  painter, 
Jan  Cock,  was  an  excellent  landscape  painter.'  “ He  was  the  first 
to  give  to  subjects  of  that  kind  the  variety  which  was  wanting 
to  them,  by  following  the  Italian  or  antique  style.  He  showed 
much  imagination  in  composing  his  views.”  The  meaning  of  this 
praise  is  not  obvious.  Guicciardini,  an  excellent  authority,  like- 
wise mentions  him  with  honour,  so  that  there  can  be  little  doubt 
of  his  importance  in  the  line  of  the  landscapists.  His  brother 
Jerome  is  said  by  Van  Mander  to  have  engraved  several  of  his 
designs,  and  as  we  possess  signed  landscape  prints  by  Jerome 
they  may  give  us  some  idea  of  the  style  of  Mathias.  A washed 
pen-and-ink  drawing  signed  by  the  elder  brother  and  dated  1527 
was  in  a private  collection  in  The  Hague,  but  is  unpublished  if  still 
discoverable.  There  is  another  landscape  drawing  in  the  Berlin 
Museum  signed  “ Cocq  ” and  dated  1541,  which  may  be  his. 
The  excuse  for  it  is  an  insignificant  figure  of  St.  Jerome  in  the 
foreground  and  a camel-caravan  in  the  distance.  The  view  is 
extensive,  but  not  unnaturally  so.  It  is,  in  fact,  a study  from 
nature  looking  from  an  elevation  across  and  along  a fertile  valley  ; 
near  at  hand  is  a fine  church  among  trees.  It  is  little  enough  to  go 
by,  and  we  are  not  sure  that  Mathias  was  the  draughtsman,  but 
it  is  easy  to  believe  that  he  may  have  been,  and  to  deduce  confirma- 
tion of  Lampsonius’  statement  that  the  sixteenth  century  had 
scarcely  seen  his  equal  as  paysagiste. 

A still  more  important  Flemish  painter  of  landscapes  in  the 
middle  of  the  sixteenth  century  was  old  Peter  Bruegel,  of  whom 
we  shall  have  more  to  say  hereafter.  He  did  not  quite  shake  him- 
self free  from  the  old  notion  that  widest  views  were  the  best.  Patinir 
and  his  followers  painted  as  though  they  thought  the  world  was 
flat,  and  if  only  you  could  get  high  enough  and  see  far  enough  you 
might  look  away  to  the  edge  ! The  curvature  of  the  earth  would 
render  their  most  ambitious  efforts  impossible  unless  seen  from 
a high  floating  balloon.  In  their  case,  therefore,  such  views  were 
purely  imaginary  and  are  unconvincing.  Old  Peter,  whose  feet 
' See  Friedlander  in  Berlin  K.F.M.  Amtl.  Ber.,  April  1915. 


358  JOACHIM  DE  PATINIR  AND  HIS  FOLLOWERS 

were  always  solidly  planted  on  the  earth,  did  not  err  to  that  extent, 
and  sometimes  he  did  not  err  at  all.  If  his  view  of  Naples  port 
on  a gusty  day  is  an  invention,  his  storm  at  Vienna  is  a brilliant 
impression  of  actual  fact,  such  as  Hubert  van  Eyck  in  one  of  his 
marvellous  miniatures  had  dimly  but  beautifully  foreseen.  Bruegel’s 
winter  scenes,  such  as  the  Hunters  in  the  Snow,  are  not  merely 
veracious  studies  from  nature,  but  in  that  case,  at  least,  noble 
landscape  compositions  with  every  feature  rightly  placed.  The 
well-swept  skating  rinks  near  the  village,  looked  down  upon  by 
snowy  peaks,  suggest  a modern  Swiss  winter-sport  centre,  but 
for  the  happy  absence  of  great  hotels.  If  the  Darmstadt  picture 
of  the  Magpie  on  the  Gibbet  is  old-fashioned  in  style  and  composi- 
tion and  the  Lobkowitz  “ June,”  except  for  its  figures,  reminiscent  of 
Lucas  Gassel,  the  backgrounds  in  Mr.  Johnson’s  Hireling  Shepherd 
and  the  Vienna  Nest-Robbers  are  perfect  and  most  original  studies 
of  domestic  landscapes  without  exaggeration  or  emphasis,  and  each 
of  them  in  entire  harmony  with  the  subject  of  the  picture  as  a 
whole.  The  steep  pine-clad  hill-side  in  the  foreground  of  the  battle 
between  Jews  and  Philistines  (Vienna)  proves  how  observant  an 
eye  and  retentive  a memory  accompanied  old  Peter  on  his  travels. 
That  he  did  not  rely  on  his  memory  alone  a few  pages  of  his  sketch- 
books survive  to  testify,  though  most  of  them  are  wide  vistas  of 
the  old-fashioned  type.  They  are  dated  1552  and  1553.  In 
the  sixties  we  meet  with  sketches  of  smaller  subjects,  such  as  a 
church  among  trees,  but  best  of  all  is  an  undated  drawing  at  New 
York  which  shows  a whole  row  of  cottages  just  as  they  stood  along 
a village  street,  almost  as  Rembrandt  might  have  drawn  them. 
To  all  this  we  shall  return  in  a later  chapter. 

Hans  Bol  was  likewise  a deserving  and  much -travelled  land- 
scape and  miniature  painter  over  whom  we  cannot  linger.  A 
drawing  by  him  in  the  British  Museum,  identified  by  Mr.  Campbell 
Dodgson,  is  of  unusual  interest  because  the  picture  painted  from  it 
can  be  seen  at  Dresden  (No.  826).  The  sketch  is  a direct  tran- 
script from  nature — a view  along  a canal.  The  picture  follows 
it  closely,  with  the  wise  addition  of  certain  features  which 
decidedly  better  the  composition.  But  for  a certain  stiff  formalism 
in  the  trees,  modern  landscape  as  conceived  in  the  following 
century  is  already  here  exemplified.  It  is,  however,  noteworthy 


OTHER  LANDSCAPE  PAINTERS 


359 


that  Bol  still  felt  the  wisdom  of  introducing  into  the  foreground 
the  figures  of  Abraham  and  the  Three  Angels,  so  as  to  pro- 
vide for  his  picture  a sacred  title.  In  the  landscape  miniatures 
which  he  painted  in  his  later  days  at  Amsterdam  he  returned  to 
the  old  tradition  and  forsook  the  naturalism  he  had  temporarily 
adopted. 

Lucas  van  Valkenborch,  a contemporary  and  perhaps  for  a 
time  a pupil  of  Bruegel,  failed  to  catch  the  new  spirit  which  his 
master  so  notably  expressed.  His  panoramic  landscapes  (such  as 
a pair  at  Frankfurt)  are  animated  by  spirited  figures,  and  in  his 
skating  scene  he  approximates  to  Avercamp.  On  the  other  hand, 
he  likewise  painted  pictures,  one,  for  instance,  at  Brunswick, 
with  high  rocks  on  one  side  and  a flat  landscape  on  the  other,  in 
the  old  convention  with  this  difference,  that  the  rocks  are  not 
structurally  impossible  and  the  flat  lands  make  no  attempt  at 
extension  to  infinity.  In  fact,  he  follows  nature  in  details  but 
convention  in  the  structure  of  his  composition. 

Though  in  point  of  date  lying  well  outside  the  extreme  limits 
of  this  work,  a word  must  be  said  about  that  important  landscape 
painter  Gillis  III  van  Coninxloo,  who  formed  a notable  link  between 
the  old  Flemish  and  the  later  Dutch  schools  of  landscape.  His 
merit  was  emphatically  proclaimed  by  Van  Mander  and  his  leader- 
ship as  a landscape  artist  by  Lampsonius,  yet  he  is  little  remembered. 
That  must  be  our  excuse  for  devoting  a few  paragraphs  to  him. 
A member  of  the  prolific  family  of  artists  chiefly  associated  with 
Brussels,  he  was  born  in  Antwerp  in  1544,  one  of  Jan  van  Coninxloo’s 
sons.  After  passing  through  the  hands  of  several  masters  he  went 
off  on  his  travels  into  France,  but  was  back  in  1570  at  Antwerp, 
where  he  married  and  took  up  his  mastership  in  the  local  guild. 
In  1585,  after  working  there  for  fifteen  years,  he,  like  30,000  more 
citizens  of  Antwerp,  being  Protestantly  inclined  with  others  of 
his  family,  found  it  best  to  quit.  He  went  to  Zeeland,  then  on  to 
Protestant  Frankenthal,  where  relations  of  his  were  already  settled. 
He  abode  there  about  ten  years  hard  at  work.  In  1597  he  became 
a citizen  of  Amsterdam,  married  a second  time,  and  there  died  in 
1607  in  rather  poor  circumstances,  but  respected  and  imitated. 
His  pictures  are  not  easily  found ; Plietzseh  * names  several  and 

1 Die  Frankenthaler  Maler,  Leipzig,  1910.  See  also  Jahrb.  Pr.  Kss.,  x,  pp.  57-71. 


360 


JOACHIM  DE  PATINIR  AND  HIS  FOLLOWERS 


Hymans  gives  a list  of  sixteen  engravings  of  works  by  him,  to  which 
three  more  have  been  added. 

In  Dresden  (No.  857)  he  is  represented  by  a signed  picture, 
dated  1588,  and  there  are  others  of  his  Frankenthal  period  in  the 
Ambrosiana  at  Milan  and  the  Galleries  at  Schwerin  and  Petrograd. 
He  started  working  on  the  old  convention,  but  gradually  exchanged 
it  for  a new  style  in  which  he  abandoned  the  high  point  of  view  and 
far  distances,  gave  up  the  customary  corridors,  and  ceased  to 
introduce  fantastic  and  impossible  rocks.  He  frequently  co-operated 
with  other  painters,  several  times  before  1581  with  Martin  van  Cleve, 
confining  himself  to  landscape  and  letting  others  paint  the  foreground 
figures.  He  often  worked  on  a large  scale.  Van  Mander  cites  a 
picture  by  him  that  was  15  feet  wide.  The  existing  canvas  at 
Dresden  measures  over  6 feet  by  4.  He  it  was  who  introduced  the 
convention : foreground  brown,  middle  distance  green,  distance  blue. 

His  most  important  pictures  were  painted  and  his  most  valuable 
influence  exercised  during  the  last  ten  years  of  his  life,  which  were 
spent  at  Amsterdam.  He  now  chiefly  painted  forest  scenes  with 
hunters.  Drawings  by  him  of  wood-landscapes  are  at  Amsterdam, 
Dresden,  and  Carlsruhe.  Two  are  in  the  Liechtenstein  Collection, 
dated  1598  and  1604,  and  others  are  known.  They  are  more 
direct  impressions  of  nature  than  the  earlier  series.  The  old 
conventions  are  gone.  The  way  is  cleared  and  the  route  pointed 
out  which  successive  generations  were  to  follow  with  increasing 
experience  and  understanding.  Van  Mander  says  that  Gillis 
first  showed  how  foliage  should  be  painted.  These  pictures 
confirm  the  statement.  John  Bruegel  and  Joos  de  Momper  were 
pupils  of  his  Antwerp  days.  At  Frankenthal  he  taught  Peter 
Schonbroeck  and  influenced  if  he  did  not  teach  Hendrik  van  der 
Borcht.  At  Amsterdam  David  Vinckboons,  Hendrik  Avercamp, 
Alexander  Keirincks,  Esaias  van  der  Velde,  and  even  Hercules 
Seghers  are  claimed  as  his  immediate  followers.  Those  were 
the  men  who  founded  the  great  Dutch  school  of  landscape  painting. 
The  important  historical  position  of  Gillis  van  Coninxloo  is  thus 
assured.  Van  Mander,  who  wrote  while  Gillis  was  still  living, 
says,  “ to  declare  in  a few  words  what  I think  of  him,  I know  no 
better  landscape  painter  in  our  time,  and  I attest  that  his  style  is 
beginning  to  be  generally  followed.” 


A PERSISTENT  TRADITION 


361 


I can  do  little  more  than  name  sueh  artists  as  Jacus  and  Roland 
Savery  and  Jaeob  de  Gheyn.  The  last  was  an  engraver  and 
draughtsman  who  has  left  several  good  landseape  drawings. 
Reproduetions  of  two  of  them  lie  before  me.  One,  in  the  British 
Museum,  is  of  the  old  type— high  impossible  roeks  on  the  left, 
level  water  on  the  right.  The  other,  at  Frankfurt,  is  a sketch  from 
the  life  on  such  a beach  as  Scheveningen’s  with  the  unloading  of 
stranded  fishing-boats — a eompletely  modern  work.  Thus  the  old 
tradition  of  what  have  been  ealled  “ world-landscapes  ” was  long 
in  dying  out.  Even  in  the  strueture  of  some  of  the  great  ereations 
of  Rubens,  such  as  the  “ Summer”  at  Windsor  or  the  “ Shipwreck 
of  .(Eneas  ” at  Berlin,  elements  can  be  traeed  of  the  convention 
whieh,  if  not  invented  by  Patinir,  received  its  first  vogue  from  the 
suecess  of  his  landscapes.^ 

1 Many  of  the  pictures  referred  to  in  this  chapter  (in  some  cases  with  different 
ascriptions)  may  be  found  conveniently  reproduced  in  Dr.  L.  von  Baldass’  monograph, 
“ Die  Niederlandische  Landschaftsmalerei  von  Patinir  bis  Bruegel,”  in  the  Vienna 
Jahrbuch,  vol.  xxxiv.  Heft  4,  1918. 


CHAPTER  XXV 


MABUSE 

Jean  Gossart,  generally  known  in  England  and  France  by  the 
name  Mabuse,  came  from  Mauberge  in  Hainault,  where  members 
of  the  family  are  recorded  as  far  back  as  the  fourteenth  century. 
The  year  of  his  birth  is  unknown.  Hulin  would  place  it  as  early 
as  about  1465.  It  is  generally  guessed  at  about  1470-5,  but  I 
think  the  earlier  date  the  more  probable,  notwithstanding  the 
reported  former  existence  of  a portrait  with  an  inscription  according 
to  which  he  was  fifty  years  old  in  1528.  Dr.  Muller  conjectures 
that  he  may  have  been  the  son  of  Jacop  van  Mauberge,  an  official 
of  the  Bishop  of  Utrecht,  living  in  the  castle  of  Duerstede.^  In 
1503  one  “ Jennyn  van  Henegouwe  ” became  a master  in  the  Ant- 
werp painters’  guild,  and  it  is  practically  certain  that  this  was  our 
artist.  He  is  likewise  recorded  in  the  same  register  as  having 
taken  pupils  in  1505  and  1507.  There  is  no  later  mention  of  him 
at  Antwerp,  for  the  good  reason  that  in  1508  he  went  to  Italy  in 
the  service  of  Philip  of  Burgundy,  the  fifth  of  Philip  the  Good’s 
sixteen  recorded  bastard  children,  and  that  on  his  return  he  made 
his  home  elsewhere. 

We  can  point  with  some  confidence  to  three  pictures  painted 
by  Mabuse  before  this  Italian  journey.  They  are  the  Adoration 
of  the  Magi  in  the  National  Gallery,  an  Agony  in  the  Garden  at 
Berlin,  and  a portrait  of  Canon  John  Carondelet  in  the  L.  Hirsch 
Collection  in  London.  The  portrait  is,  perhaps,  the  earliest  of 
the  three.  It  may  be  described  as  of  the  Bruges  School,  and  pro- 
claims the  artistic  parentage  of  Memling.  Indeed,  we  can  point 
to  that  master’s  portrait  of  a lady  (misnamed  the  Sibylla  Sambetha 
in  the  Hospital  of  St.  John),  which  Mabuse  must  have  referred  to 
when  painting  the  Canon,  for  he  has  put  his  hands  into  exactly  the 
same  position  as  hers.  The  convention  is  Memling’s  throughout, 

^ Onze  Kunst,  1917,  No.  3. 

362 


CARONDELET 


363 


and  one  is  almost  tempted  to  imagine  that  the  sitter  pointed  to 
such  a portrait  as  that  of  a young  man  now  in  the  Dun  Collection, 
and  requested  to  be  painted  just  like  that.  Yet  here  we  have  no 
slavish  and  uninspired  imitation,  but  a likeness  full  of  life,  the  lips 
mobile,  the  countenance  lit  up,  the  pose  natural  and  easy.  A 
young  artist  attaining  such  success  with  a first  commission  from 
a wealthy  patron  would  not  fail  of  recommendation  from  him. 

Carondelet,^  who  afterwards  became  Chancellor  of  Flanders, 
was  himself  the  son  of  a Chancellor  of  Burgundy.  He  was  born  in 
1469  and  was  early  appointed  a Canon  of  St.  Peter’s  at  Anderlecht, 
near  Brussels.  In  1485  he  became  Canon  of  St.  Donatian’s  at 
Bruges,  and  soon  annexed  various  other  comfortable  pieces  of 
ecclesiastical  preferment.  He  became  secretary  to  Charles  V 
and  member  of  his  council  at  Mechlin  in  1503,  which  must  be 
somewhere  about  the  date  of  this  portrait.  In  1527  he  was  made 
Provost  of  St.  Donatian’s  and  soon  afterward  Archbishop  of 
Palermo.  He  died  at  Mechlin  in  1545.  Three  times,  as  we  shall 
see,  Mabuse  painted  his  portrait,  so  that  Carondelet  proved  a steady 
patron,  and  the  artist  may  have  owed  to  his  introduction  the 
valuable  relations  he  was  enabled  to  form,  and  in  particular  that 
with  Philip  of  Burgundy. 

The  most  important  of  the  three  early  pictures  is  the  Adoration 
of  the  Magi,  formerly  in  the  Carlisle  Collection  and  now  in  the 
National  Gallery.  It  was  probably  painted  for  the  Abbey  of 
St.  Adrian’s  at  Grammont  in  East  Flanders,  but  how  Mabuse  came 
to  get  so  large  a commission  thus  early  is  unknown.  We  can  only 
guess  that  Carondelet  may  have  procured  it  for  him,  and  we  can 
easily  believe  that  he  again  gave  satisfaction,  for  the  picture  is 
still  one  of  the  best  admired  altar-pieces  of  the  Early  Netherlands 
School.  Its  reputation  is  due  to  its  size,  brilliant  colouring,  decora- 
tive quality,  and  minuteness  of  detailed  finish.  Its  aspect  of 
elaborate  completeness  imposes  wonder  upon  the  spectator  and  leads 
him  to  suspect  that  he  is  in  the  presence  of  a very  serious  work 
of  art.  Certainly,  for  a young  artist  not  much  over  25  years  of 
age,  it  represents  a great  technical  accomplishment.  The  painter 
must  have  come  out  of  a good  school  and  been  a gifted  man  and  a 
hard  worker.  Internal  evidence  once  more  leads  us  to  Bruges,  but 

1 See  Weale  in  the  Burlington  Mag.,  March  1910,  p.  341. 


364 


MABUSE 


this  time  to  the  studio  of  a living  artist,  none  other  than  Gerard 
David,  from  whom  Mabuse  may  have  learnt  his  craft.  In  this 
Adoration  of  the  Magi  we  find  the  solid  fifteenth-century  traditions 
thoroughly  acquired  and  expressed.  There  is  no  trace  of  Antwerp 
or  of  the  Renaissance  except  a little  bit  of  sculptured  frieze  ; other- 
wise the  ruined  architecture  is  such  Romanesque  as  the  Van  Eycks 
preferred.  It  is  all  quite  scholarly — ^the  perspective  carefully 
attended  to,  splendid  stuffs  well  painted,  elaborate  late  Gothic 
goldsmith’s  work,  angels  of  recognizable  pedigree — ^put  together 
with  pains,  but  without  poetic  imagination.  The  young  artist 
had  not  confined  his  attention  to  the  local  school  alone  ; he  had 
studied  the  best  contemporary  engravings  that  came  his  way, 
especially  Diirer’s.  I think  he  took  the  general  notion  of  his  back- 
ground, with  the  round  arch  over  it  and  the  landscape  seen  through, 
from  Durer’s  well-known  Nativity  print  of  1504.  He  certainly 
borrowed  the  dog  on  the  right  from  Durer’s  St.  Eustace  and  the 
other  dog  from  Martin  Schongauer,  such  loans  being  a custom  of 
the  school  from  which  he  sprang.  His  only  conspicuous  failure  in 
detail  is  with  the  badly  foreshortened  head  of  St.  Joseph,  and  that 
is  an  error  repeated  in  the  St.  Peter  of  the  Berlin  Agony. 

The  latter  picture  is  yet  more  obviously  of  Gerard  David’s 
school,  and  is  again  an  uninspired  work  of  much  technical  accom- 
plishment produced  with  infinite  pains.  The  problem  which 
Mabuse  here  set  himself  to  solve  was  one  of  illumination,  and  if 
the  spiritual  tragedy  is  ignored  it  is  because  the  artist’s  whole 
energies  were  concentrated  on  novel  technical  difficulties.  We  have 
already  observed  earlier  painters  wrestling  with  the  same  problem. 
Mabuse  carried  the  solution  a step  further,  but  without  a glimmering 
of  an  idea  of  the  imaginative  possibilities  that  may  lurk  within  a 
mysterious  chiaroscuro. 

In  1508  we  know  of  a surety  that  our  artist  set  off  for  Italy  in 
the  suite  of  Philip  of  Burgundy.  His  patron  was  a brilliant, 
highly  educated,  humanistic  amateur,  who  is  said  to  have  been 
excellent  company  and  to  have  studied  the  crafts  of  the  painter  and 
the  goldsmith.  His  business  in  Italy  was  a diplomatic  mission  to 
Pope  Julius  II.  He  had  held  other  political  and  military  appoint- 
ments, but  his  heart  was  not  in  affairs,  and  as  soon  as  he  could  he 
retired  from  them  and  gave  himself  up  to  cultured  society.  It  is 


HIS  VISIT  TO  ITALY 


365 


evident  that  his  purpose  was  to  devote  attention  in  Italy  to  the 
works  and  monuments  of  antiquity  ; if  he  took  an  artist  with  him 
it  was  as  a traveller  to-day  would  take  a photographer  to  make  for 
him  as  accurate  a record  as  possible  of  the  objects  that  pleased  him. 
The  kind  of  man  he  would  be  likely  to  inquire  for  was  a good  and 
accurate  draughtsman ; he  could  scarcely  have  found  one  at 
Antwerp  better  equipped  than  Mabuse. 

It  is  useless  to  look  for  pictures  painted  by  our  artist  in  Italy, 
or  to  expect  to  find  in  his  later  work  evidence  of  much  influence 
brought  to  bear  upon  him  by  the  contemporary  Italian  artists 
with  whom  or  whose  work  he  came  in  contact.  We  have  to  give 
up  the  tempting  ascription  to  him  of  the  little  diptych  in  the  Doria 
Gallery,  showing  Messer  Antonio  Siciliano  kneeling  to  a copy  of 
Van  Eyck’s  Virgin  in  a Church,  which  Marcantonio  Michiel  saw  in 
the  Vendramin  House  in  Venice  in  1530.  Mabuse’s  working  hours 
in  Rome  were  entirely  occupied  in  drawing  those  sacra  vetustatis 
monumenta  which  formed  his  patron’s  chief  interest.  Unfortunately 
only  one  of  the  drawings  is  known  to  exist,  a careful  pen-and-ink 
sketch  of  the  so-called  Hermaphrodite  (now  in  Naples  Museum), 
which  Friendlander  found  in  the  Academy  at  Venice  (phot.  Ander- 
son, 15093).  Nor  was  it  only  these  drawings  that  Philip  brought 
home  with  him,  but  two  solid  sculptures  of  Julius  Caesar  and 
Hadrian,  gifts  from  Julius  II.  He  was  back  in  Brussels  on  June  22, 
1509,  but  Mabuse  had  not  finished  his  work  till  some  months  later, 
when  he  too  returned  and  joined  his  patron  at  Middelburg,  where 
Mabuse’s  brother,  Nicasius  Gossart  the  architect,  also  resided. 
He  still  remained  in  Philip’s  service,  and  that  wandering  and 
pretentious  but  second-rate  artist  Jacopo  de’  Barbari  was  his 
colleague.  Both  were  employed  to  paint  decorations  for  their 
master’s  chateau  at  Suytborg  on  Walcheren  Island,  between 
Flushing  and  Middelburg,  though  that  was  not  Mabuse’s  sole  or 
even  principal  work,  nor  was  he  by  any  means  exclusively,  perhaps 
not  even  mainly,  employed  by  Philip. 

It  is  customary  to  attribute  to  the  days  immediately  following 
Mabuse’s  return  from  Italy  the  painting  of  one  of  his  most  dis- 
tinguished works — the  elaborate  little  triptych  at  Palermo  ; but 
I doubt  if  it  was  really  made  before  1511.  When  we  remember 
that  it  was  already  in  Sicily  as  long  ago  as  the  early  years  of  the 
25 


366 


MABUSE 


seventeenth  century,  and  that  Carondelet  was  Archbishop  of 
Palermo,  we  can  hardly  fail  to  conclude  that  it  was  for  him  Mabuse 
painted  it.  Perhaps  he  left  it  to  his  Cathedral  Church.  During 
his  lifetime  it  may  have  been  the  altar-piece  of  his  domestic  chapel, 
and  thus  accessible  in  Bruges  to  privileged  artists.  That  it  or 
a finished  drawing  of  it  was  thus  accessible  is  proved  by  the  con- 
temporary copies  by  painters  of  the  Bruges  School,  working  about 
the  year  1520.  Isenbrant  copied  the  middle  panel  twice  (Colls. 
Kaufmann  and  Ed.  de  Rothschild),  and  painted  a panel  (former 
Coll.  Emden)  in  imitation  of  the  Fall  on  the  outside  of  the  wings. 
There  are  also  copies,  more  or  less  close,  in  Lord  Northbrook’s 
collection  and  at  Schloss  Gnadenthal. 

No  trace  of  Italian  influence  is  visible  either  on  the  central 
panel  or  the  wings.  The  architecture  with  its  superabundance 
of  complicated  detail  is  as  far  removed  from  anything  ever  con- 
ceived in  Italy  as  can  be.  Its  traceries  and  carved  foliations  are 
too  multitudinous  to  have  been  actually  carried  out  even  by  an 
Antwerp  wood-sculptor  of  the  day,  but  are  just  the  kind  of  thing 
an  ingenious  draughtsman  might  have  been  amused  to  design 
who  was  familiar  with  such  complex  wooden  canopies  as  those, 
for  example,  which  surmount  the  Antwerp  School  altar-pieces 
in  the  Engelbertus  Chapel  in  Cologne  Cathedral  and  the  Church 
of  St.  Gereon  in  the  same  city.  The  landscapes  are  equally  Nether- 
landish, while  the  figures  of  the  Virgin  and  Saints  are  of  Gerard 
David’s  type.  As  for  the  Cherubs,  which  have  been  attributed 
to  an  Italian  parentage,  they  clearly  derive  their  origin  from  Durer, 
and  are  only  in  so  far  Italian  as  he  was  indebted  to  Italy  for  the 
thought  of  them.  The  central  panel,  therefore,  and  the  interior 
of  the  wings  of  this  wonderfully  executed  piece  of  pictorial  elabora- 
tion are  altogether  Northern,  and  could  even  have  been  painted  at 
Antwerp  before  Mabuse  went  to  Italy. 

But  when  we  close  the  wings  and  regard  the  exterior,  no  such 
possibility  remains.  The  Adam  and  Eve  with  their  arms  so 
affectionately  interlaced  are  obviously  imitated  from  the  first 
print  (B.  17)  in  Diirer’s  small  woodcut  Passion,  and  that  was  not 
published  as  a whole  till  1511.  We  cannot  escape  from  this  date 
by  guessing  that  the  print  in  question  was  issued  separately  before 
the  publication  of  the  whole  series  together  as  a volume.  Doubtless 


THE  PALERMO  TRIPTYCH 


367 


many,  perhaps  most,  of  the  bloeks  were  designed  as  early  as  1497, 
and  may  have  been  eut  on  the  wood,  printed,  and  sold  separately 
from  that  time  on,  but  this  partieular  cut  cannot  have  been  one 
of  those,  for  it  unquestionably  forms  a pair  both  in  design  and  in 
execution  with  the  next  print,  the  Expulsion  from  Eden  (B.  18), 
and  that  is  plainly  dated  1510,  while  to  confirm  this  date  for  the 
Fall  we  have  only  to  compare  it  with  an  associated  drawing 
of  the  subject  (Albertina,  L,  518)  by  Diirer’s  own  hand,  which  also 
bears  the  date  1510.  We  are  thus  compelled  to  conclude  that 
the  outsides  of  the  wings  can  scarcely  have  been  painted  before 
the  publication  of  Diirer’s  small  woodcut  Passion  in  1511.  It 
is  possible,  but  highly  improbable,  that  the  three  inside  panels 
were  designed  and  painted  by  Mabuse  at  Antwerp  before  his  visit 
to  Italy,  and  that  the  outside  picture  was  added  later.  But  observe 
what  even  that  hypothesis  involves.  Mabuse,  after  spending 
months  over  no  other  work  than  drawing  copies  of  antique  sculptures, 
mostly  nudes,  came  home  and  painted  these  two  nude  figures, 
and  based  them,  not  on  antiques,  but  on  a Nuremberg  artist’s 
design.  Evidently  his  studies  in  Italy  produced  little  or  no 
immediate  effect  upon  his  ideal  of  the  human  form.  If  later  on, 
as  we  shall  soon  see,  a change  took  place  in  his  art,  that  change 
will  have  been  due,  not  to  a spontaneous  development  within 
himself,  but  to  the  promptings  or  orders  of  an  employer. 

The  Palermo  triptych  attracted  the  attention  of  imitators  as 
well  as  copyists.  Architecture  of  impossibly  elaborate  complexity, 
suggested  by  its  canopies,  crept  into  many  of  the  pictures  painted 
by  the  school  of  artists  named  by  Friedlander  the  Antwerp  Man- 
nerists of  1520.  I am  tempted  to  introduce  one  such  picture  to 
the  reader  at  this  point  for  the  sake  of  the  place  where  I chanced 
to  meet  with  it,  Bolivia  to  wit.  It  was  afterwards  acquired  by 
that  intrepid  excavator  of  prehistoric  Peruvians,  the  late  Mr.  A.  F. 
Bandelier.  He  carried  it  away  to  New  York,  and  later,  I believe, 
to  Europe,  but  where  it  may  now  be  is  unknown.  It  belonged 
to  the  descendants  of  one  of  the  oldest  Bolivian  families,  and 
was  said  to  have  been  taken  out  by  their  founder.  The  picture 
represents  a Virgin  standing  under  a Mabuse  canopy  with  the 
Child  in  her  arms.  He  is  stretching  His  hands  toward  an  open 
book,  for  which  the  curly  head  and  delicate  hands  of  a kneeling 


368 


MABUSE 


angel  in  rich  attire  serve  as  a pulpit.  The  background  is  an 
extensive  landscape.  In  the  bottom  right-hand  corner  is  a sig- 
nature added  later,  “ Joh.  K.  (?)  Smits  f.  1592.”  There  is  also 
an  added  owner’s  coat-of-arms  in  the  middle  between  the  initials 
A.  B.  In  style  the  work  agrees  closely  with  that  characteristic 
of  Friedlander’s  Group  E,  and  I believe  it  may  actually  belong  to 
that  group.  The  picture  is  about  eighteen  inches  in  height,  and 
is  in  bad  condition. 

The  charming  little  half-length  portrait  in  the  National  Gallery 
of  a girl  in  the  character  of  the  Magdalen  groups  itself  with  the 
Palermo  triptych  for  delicacy  of  treatment.  She  is  not  a beauty, 
but  Mabuse  could  not  help  that ; what  he  nevertheless  accomplished 
was  to  make  this  little  likeness  of  her  a thing  full  of  charm,  and, 
while  throwing  the  homely  face  into  full  light,  to  entangle  the 
attention  of  a spectator  in  the  pretty  intricacies  of  her  costume, 
her  characteristic  hands,  and  the  piece  of  plate  they  hold.  The 
picture  may  have  been  painted  in  the  artist’s  Antwerp  period. 

With  the  Palermo  triptych  we  may  group  a picture  in  the  Prado 
showing  the  heads  of  Christ,  the  Virgin,  and  John  Baptist,  each 
under  an  elaborately  carved  canopy  with  a beautiful  singing  angel 
leaning  out  through  a round  opening  above.  Mabuse  in  this 
angel  touched  the  highest  point  of  beauty  he  ever  attained.  The 
fitting  of  the  figure  into  the  space,  the  forthputting  of  the  wings, 
the  multiple  crumpling  and  decorative  modelling  of  the  drapery, 
and  the  sentiment  of  the  little  person  are  all  delightfully  imagined 
and  expressed.  Even  the  impossible  architecture  is  pleasing  in 
paint.  The  heads  of  the  sacred  personages  were  borrowed  in  a 
general  way  from  the  Van  Eyck  Ghent  altar-piece.  Whether  all 
these  pictures  were  painted  before  Mabuse  left  Antwerp  or  not, 
they  form  an  inter-related  group  and  are  divided  from  those  that 
come  after  them.  If  the  Italian  visit  had  coincided  with  this 
division,  the  stages  of  Mabuse’s  development  would  have  fallen 
into  nicely  sundered  chapters,  but  they  obviously  did  not. 

After  these  pictures  were  painted,  a change  occurred  in  the 
artist’s  style.  It  was  doubtless  exemplified  in  the  great  altar-piece 
of  the  Descent  from  the  Cross,  which  he  next  took  in  hand.  The 
picture  was  so  famous  in  its  day  that  Durer  went  out  of  his  way 
to  see  it  at  Middelburg.  He  found  it  better  in  execution  than 


THE  DESCENT  FROM  THE  CROSS 


369 


design,  a judgment  no  one  can  now  control,  for  after  escaping  the 
iconoelasts  it  was  destroyed  by  a lightning-lit  fire  in  1568.  The 
pieture  was  large,  with  double  wings,  and  is  said  to  have  taken 
fifteen  years  to  paint.  It  was  ordered  by  Maximilian  of  Burgundy 
for  the  Premonstratensian  Convent  at  Middelburg,  of  which  he  was 
Abbot.  Another  Descent  painted  about  1520  (they  guess),  perhaps 
before  the  first  had  been  finished,  was  in  the  Hermitage  at  Petrograd, 
and  may  be  used  as  some  indication  of  what  the  picture  devoured 
by  the  flames  was  like.  Durer’s  criticism  applies  also  to  it.  It 
is  a clever  pieee  of  craftsmanship  but  a distraught  composition, 
theatrical,  passionate  without  true  feeling,  studied  and  put 
together  but  not  beheld.  The  old  formal  dignity  of  the  Byzantine 
and  the  great  Gothic  artists  is  here  replaced  by  a sophisticated 
realism  laeking  all  genuine  emotion.  Between  such  a Descent  as, 
for  instanee,  that  emblemized  rather  than  depicted  in  the  superb 
ivory  figures  of  the  thirteenth  century  in  the  Louvre  and  a picture 
of  the  same  subject  by  an  artist  of  the  type  of  Tintoretto,  there 
is  no  satisfaetory  half-way  treatment.  Van  Mander  and  his  con- 
temporaries did  not  think  so.  The  Petrograd  picture  which  he 
saw  in  the  possession  of  one  Magnus  at  Delft  pleased  him  greatly. 
He  diseovered  beauty  in  the  figures  and  draperies  and  sorrow  in 
the  expressions. 1 They  fail  to  awaken  a modern  response. 

It  is  searcely  to  be  supposed  that  Mabuse  did  not  paint  a like- 
ness of  his  patron,  Philip,  and  it  is  tempting  to  aecept  the  portrait 
of  a knight  of  the  Golden  Fleece  in  Amsterdam  Museum,  obviously 
by  Mabuse,  and  traditionally  so  named,  as  giving  us  the  aspeet 
of  this  cultured  personage.  But  there  exists  in  the  Macquoid 
Colleetion  in  London  another  portrait  of  the  same  individual 
wearing  the  initials  F.  E.  on  a badge  in  his  hat,  which  has  led 
to  the  suggestion  that  he  may  be  another  knight  of  the  Golden 
Fleece,  Count  Floris  of  Egmont.  As  the  man  painted  can  scarcely 
be  more  than  thirty  years  of  age,  the  picture,  if  of  Floris,  must 
have  been  painted  at  latest  by  1499,  if  of  Philip  by  1494.  But 
the  wearing  of  the  Fleece  upon  a ribbon  involves  a date  not  earlier 
than  1516,  so  that  both  Philip  and  Egmont  are  exeluded. 

Friedlander  refers  to  the  years  about  1510  an  attractive  portrait 

^ There  is  a small  Descent  in  the  Traumann  Collection  which  Weisz  and  Winkler 
give  to  Mabuse,  but  Friedlander  takes  away. 


370 


MABUSE 


of  a young  man  in  the  Cook  Collection  (Richmond),  and  other 
portraits  at  Copenhagen  and  in  the  Liphart  Collection,  the  last 
of  which  I have  never  seen.  The  Copenhagen  picture  is  assuredly 
later  by  many  years,  and  the  Cook  picture  appears  to  me  to  come 
after  the  dated  Carondelet  of  1517.  As  a piece  of  character- 
painting it  shows  progress,  the  pout  of  the  man’s  lips,  the  tilt  of 
his  nose,  and  the  sidelong  glance  of  his  slit-like  eyes  figuring  in 
strange  harmony  a thoroughly  unpleasant  character.  His  face 
expresses  the  sentiment  of  the  New  England  farmer,  “Them  as 
is  hogs  to  me.  I’ll  be  hogs  to  them.” 

Three  portraits,  all  I believe  of  about  the  year  1515,  are  linked 
together  by  the  peculiar  fashion  of  the  hats  worn  by  the  three 
men.  They  are  the  above-mentioned  Macquoid  portrait,  which 
may  be  a copy  of  a Mabuse  by  a different  artist,  the  portrait  of 
Charles  V at  Budapest,  and  a portrait  at  Copenhagen,  called  Chris- 
tian II.  The  Macquoid  knight  wears  the  Fleece  on  a collar  ; 
in  the  Amsterdam  Mabuse  he  wears  it  on  a ribbon.  The  latter 
picture  cannot,  therefore,  be  before  1516  ; the  former  might  be  a 
year  earlier.  The  hats  in  both  are  similar.  The  Macquoid  pic- 
ture may  be  of  1515.  The  Charles  V appears  to  me  to  be  exactly 
of  the  age  of  his  portrait  by  Van  Orley,  whereof  there  is  a copy 
in  the  Louvre  ; it  shows  a similar  hat  and  is  attributed  to  about 
1516.  Friedlander  would  likewise  attribute  to  Orley  the  Buda- 
pest picture,  but  to  me  it  seems,  as  far  as  composition  is  concerned, 
a thoroughly  characteristic  Mabuse.  As  for  the  Copenhagen 
picture,  it  should  be  noted  that  Mabuse’s  patron,  Philip,  in  the 
very  year  1515  which  the  date  on  the  panel  and  the  fashion  of  the 
hat  proclaim,  conducted  Charles  V’s  sister,  Isabella,  to  her  bride- 
groom, King  Christian  II  of  Denmark,  and  that  nothing  is  less 
improbable  than  that  he  took  Mabuse  with  him,  and  that  Mabuse 
having  painted  the  King  at  Copenhagen,  perhaps  to  carry  back 
to  Charles,  had  the  opportunity  on  his  return  to  paint  the  likeness 
of  the  future  Emperor.  I shall  have  another  word  to  say  about 
this  portrait  in  the  chapter  on  Van  Orley. 

An  unattractive  study  at  Hampton  Court — ^two  rather  coarse 
nudes  in  the  characters  of  Adam  and  Eve — dates  from  Mabuse’s 
Middelburg  period.  It  belonged  to  Henry  VIII,  and  may  have 
suited  his  robust  taste  ! It  is  exceeded  in  ugliness  by  a later 


HIS  NUDES 


371 


version  at  Berlin  and  a drawing  in  the  Albertina,  and  these  are 
not  all  of  their  kind,  but  let  them  suffice.  More  interesting  is 
the  altar-piece,  now  at  Prague,  which  belonged  to  the  Guild  of  the 
Painters  at  Mechlin  and  therefore  had  to  represent  St.  Luke  drawing 
the  likeness  of  the  Virgin.  The  figures  are  of  minor  importance, 
and  are  lost  in  the  architecture  and  its  sculptured  decorations. 
Here  Mabuse’s  Italian  studies  were  brought  to  bear.  He  designed 
the  finest  kind  of  a corridor  he  could  think  of,  with  plinths  and 
columns  and  architraves,  mouldings  and  cornices,  all  in  a bastard 
classical  style,  and  he  put  sculptured  figures  about,  one  being 
imitated  from  the  antique  Boy  with  a Goose  now  at  Naples,  but 
he  could  have  seen  and  copied  it  in  the  Savelli  Collection  in  Rome 
when  he  was  there.  Curiously  enough  he  filled  some  of  his  classical 
panels  with  latest  Gothic  tracery  and  figures,  and  introduced  more 
late  Gothic  in  the  view  through  the  main  archway,  while  his  drapery 
is  as  folded  and  complicated  as  in  any  fifteenth-century  Flemish 
picture.  The  result  is  an  entertaining  work,  but  not  a fine  one. 
It  may  have  given  a good  deal  of  pleasure  in  its  day,  but  for  all 
its  ingenuity  it  leaves  us  cold. 

The  Neptune  and  Amphitrite  at  Berlin,  dated  1516,  was  probably 
painted  to  decorate  some  room  in  Suytborg.  The  grouping  was 
suggested  by  one  of  Jacopo  de’  Barbari’s  engravings,  and  the 
figures  modified  by  imitation  of  Diirer’s  print  of  Adam  and  Eve. 
The  flesh  is  carefully  modelled  in  grey.  The  architectural  back- 
ground is  again  intended  to  be  of  classical  type.  It  is  the  kind  of 
picture  that  would  doubtless  have  been  pleasing  to  patron  Philip. 
Of  similar  character  is  the  Hercules  and  Deianira  (of  1517)  in  the 
Cook  Collection.  However  unattractive  these  nudes  may  be  to 
us,  the  delicacy  with  which  they  are  drawn  and  the  carefulness  of 
the  soft  and  elaborate  modelling  cannot  escape  recognition.  It  is 
the  types  that  are  so  ugly.  It  seems  incredible  that  anyone  could 
ever  have  thought  otherwise. 

In  1517  that  cultured  and  mature  layman,  patron  Philip,  was 
turned  into  a Bishop  and  endowed  with  the  fat  see  of  Utrecht. 
Thereupon  Mabuse’s  Middelburg  days  came  to  an  end.  Suytborg 
Castle  was  abandoned,  and  the  little  court  moved  over  to  the 
episcopal  residence  of  Duerstede.  Mabuse  seems  now  to  have  made 
his  home  at  Utrecht,  not  that  he  stayed  there  all  the  time,  any 


372 


MABUSE 


more  than  he  had  remained  immovable  at  Middelburg.  He 
had,  for  instance,  in  1516  gone  somewhere  to  paint  portraits  for 
Charles  V of  his  sister  Eleanore  of  Austria,  as  recorded  payments 
tell  us  ; perhaps,  also,  of  Charles  himself.  Another  time  he  helped 
design  a funeral  pageant  at  Brussels.  Later,  in  1523,  Regent 
Margaret  sent  for  him  to  Mechlin  to  restore  some  of  her  pictures — 
a fortnight’s  job.  In  1527  Lucas  van  Leyden  came  to  visit  him 
(but  that  was  after  he  had  gone  back  to  Middelburg)  and  gave  him 
a great  feast.  Then  the  two  set  out  together  on  a little  tour  to  see 
their  contemporaries  in  other  centres,  and  a thoroughly  good  time 
they  had,  travelling  on  the  Dutchman’s  private  barge,  and  giving 
banquets  wherever  they  stopped.  Van  Mander  is  our  authority 
for  the  story  and  for  an  account  of  Scorel’s  experiences.  This 
latter  artist,  apparently  a puritanical  person,  thought  to  improve 
his  art  by  studying  a while  under  Mabuse,  so  he  w'ent  to  Utrecht 
and  set  to  work  ; but  Mabuse  had  a way  of  taking  him  to  the  inns 
to  drink,  and  it  was  Scorel  who  paid ; he  found  the  frolics  both 
expensive  and  dangerous,  for  there  were  rows,  as  whoso  knows  Dutch 
paintings  of  drinking  shops  in  the  seventeenth  century  can  well 
believe.  So  Scorel  said  good-bye  to  Mabuse  and  went  to  study 
elsewhere.  Modern  critics  with  the  superiority  of  entire  ignorance 
declare  Van  Mander’s  tale  untrue,  because,  say  they,  Mabuse  was 
evidently  a very  hard  worker  and  left  a comfortable  competence 
to  his  family  when  he  died.  I have  known  other  festive  parties 
of  whom  the  same  statements  might  truthfully  be  made,  but  they 
frolicked  none  the  less.  Moreover,  in  Mabuse’s  case  he  left  his 
fellow-revellers  to  pay  the  cost  of  his  recorded  jollifications,  which 
seems  canny  at  least,  and  helps  to  account  for  his  bank-balance. 
One  thing  is  certain,  whether  our  artist  was  too  festive  or  not,  the 
hard  work  claimed  for  him  was  done  and  its  results  abide.  The 
frolics  are  long  over. 

Mabuse’s  change  of  residence  seems  to  have  brought  him  again 
into  contact  with  Carondelet,  for  whom  in  this  year  1517  he  painted 
the  diptych  now  in  the  Louvre  with  a really  admirable  portrait  on 
one  leaf  and  a Virgin  and  Child  on  the  other,  both  wrought  to 
a remarkable  degree  of  finish.  Mabuse’s  half-length  Madonnas 
must  have  been  very  popular,  for  a considerable  number  survive 
and  many  more  existed.  There  was  a good  one  in  the  Kaufmann 


HIS  MADONNAS 


373 


Collection ; another  belongs  to  M.  Max  Wassermann  in  Paris. 
No  one  will  expect  them  to  be  inspired  religious  works,  but  they 
are  decorative  and  the  babies  very  fat  and  curly-haired  with  large 
dark  eyes  and  lips  like  ripe  cherries.  Yet  another  formed  the 
dexter  half  of  a diptych  of  which  the  portrait  of  a Man  with  a Rosary 
in  the  National  Gallery  was  the  other  wing.  A replica  of  it  or  the 
cut-down  original  is  in  the  J.  G.  Johnson  Collection,  the  archi- 
tecture in  the  background  showing  the  connexion  between  the 
two.  Another  version  of  the  Madonna  is  in  the  Prado  with  the 
background  changed  to  make  it  stand  comfortably  alone — a varia- 
tion which  seemed  unnecessary  to  Hans  Baldung  when  he  copied  the 
original  in  1530,  as  may  be  seen  in  the  German  Museum  at  Nurem- 
berg. No  better  example  could  be  cited  to  show  Mabuse’s  powers 
and  limitations  than  this  pair  of  panels,  the  figures  on  the  one  being 
manufactured  to  a formula,  that  on  the  other  splendidly  seen, 
comprehended,  and  expressed.  Yet  two  at  least  of  Mabuse’s 
Madonnas  were  so  cordially  admired  in  their  day  that  they  were 
copied  again  and  again.  The  original  of  neither  has  come  down  to 
us.  The  first,  which  may  be  dated  to  about  1520,  makes  of  the 
Virgin  a richly  dressed  and  finely  coiffured  lady  with  a long  white 
veil  falling  down  over  the  Child’s  Head.  The  composition  is  built 
up  about  this  undulating  band  of  white  and  its  continuation  below. 
Examples  of  this  type  are  at  Douai,  Berlin,  Cologne,  Brussels, 
Worlitz,  Schwerin,  and  a dozen  more  places.  Friedlander  says 
that  the  date  of  most  of  these  copies  is  about  1550  and  has  an  idea 
who  may  have  painted  them — one  Paulus  van  Aalst,  son  of  Peter 
Coeck. 

I will  not  weary  the  reader  with  more  than  the  names  of  a few 
of  the  quasi-classical  mythological  subjects  which  in  these  years 
came  from  Mabuse’s  easel.  There  is  a Venus  and  Cupid  (dated 
1520)  in  the  Schloss  Collection,  the  design  of  the  figures  borrowed 
from  two  engravings  by  Marcantonio.  At  Rovigo  is  another 
Venus.  A copy  of  a lost  Hercules  and  Antaeus,  dated  1523,  was 
shown  at  the  Bruges  Exhibition  of  1902  (No.  225),  and  one  after  a 
lost  Mars,  Venus,  and  Cupid  at  the  Golden  Fleece  Exhibition 
(No.  222).  The  latter  displays  in  its  clinging  drapery  the  continuing 
influence  of  Jacopo  de’  Barbari.  The  last  I need  mention  is  the 
Danae  at  Munich,  which  is  both  signed  and  dated  (1527).  All 


374 


MABUSE 


are  terribly  boring  pictures  on  which  the  artist  wasted  rare  abilities 
and  great  pains.  They  were  probably  painted  to  the  order  of  ill- 
advised  amateurs  who  would  have  done  much  better  to  sit  to 
him  for  their  portraits. 

In  April  1524  Philip  of  Burgundy  died,  and  Mabuse  went  back 
to  Middelburg  again  and  entered  the  service  of  Adolphus  of  Bur- 
gundy, lord  of  Veere,  son  of  Philip  and  grandson  of  Anthony, 
another  of  Philip  the  Good’s  bastards.  This  new  patron  was 
a ponderous  and  severe  person,  very  different  from  his  predecessor. 
His  lady  was  Anne  van  Bergen.  Mabuse  painted  her  and  her 
boy  in  the  character  of  the  Virgin  and  Child,  and  the  picture  is 
known  to  us  only  by  numerous  copies.  One  of  the  best  is  at 
Longford  Castle.  A good  portrait  of  the  mother  in  her  own 
character  belongs  to  Mrs.  Gardner  at  Boston,  and  another  version 
to  Lord  Brownlow.  A delightful  little  picture  of  her  youngest 
daughter  Jacqueline  in  the  National  Gallery  shows  a round-eyed, 
round-cheeked,  round-headed  little  lass,  who  from  the  object  she 
holds  in  her  hand  appears  to  be  studying  elementary  astronomy. 
The  ferocious  Christian  II  of  Denmark,  when  chased  away  from  his 
kingdom  in  1523,  took  refuge  with  Adolphus  of  Burgundy,  Mabuse 
painted  the  portrait-group  of  his  three  children,  either  now  or  a 
year  or  two  later.  The  original  of  this  picture  is  at  Hampton 
Court,  and  copies  of  it  at  Longford,  Wilton,  and  Hornby.  Why 
it  should  have  been  so  much  appreciated  in  England  is  a mystery. 
In  the  case  of  all  four  examples  the  children  were  called  those 
of  Henry  VIII,  regardless  of  the  fact  that  their  sexes  do  not  fit. 
The  picture  is  one  of  Mabuse’s  most  charming  works.  The  eldest 
child,  Hans,  is  in  the  middle  between  Dorothea  and  the  baby 
Christina,  who  was  to  grow  up  into  that  Duchess  of  Milan  immor- 
talized in  the  full-length  portrait  by  Holbein  which  all  the  world 
knows  in  the  National  Gallery.  The  three  little  people  are  leaning 
over  a table  and  are  thus  visible  only  from  the  waist  up.  They 
make  a great  deal  of  play  with  their  hands,  which  are  prominently 
thrust  forward  and  painted  with  singular  variety  and  minuteness. 
Mabuse  also  painted  another  portrait  of  their  royal  father,  which  no 
longer  exists.  It  has  been  identified  from  an  engraving  made  after 
it  by  Jacob  Bincks.  The  probability  is  strong  that  the  mother  of 
these  children,  Isabella  of  Austria,  Charles  V’s  sister,  was  likewise 


PLATE  XVITT 


1.  MABUSE.  CARLSRUIIE.— p.  36-1.  2.  ANTWERP  SCHOOL.  FROM  BOLIVIA. 

p.  307. 


1.  MABUSE  (by  or  altrr).  GOBI LUIBURY. 
p.  374. 


3.  MABUSE.  CII.VRLES  V.  BUDAPEST, 
p.  370. 


[To  face  page  374. 


i.r. 


HIS  LATER  PORTRAITS 


375 


portrayed  by  our  artist,  and  Friedlander  thinks  he  may  have  seen 
such  a picture  at  an  Italian  dealer’s.  The  portrait  of  her  belonging 
to  Count  Tarnowski  at  Dzikow  in  South  Poland,  though  attributed 
to  Mabuse,  is  not  accepted  as  a genuine  work  by  him.  When  she 
died  in  1526  the  advice  of  Mabuse  was  asked  about  the  design  for 
her  monument.  The  artist’s  introduction  to  this  queen  may  have 
happened  as  far  back  as  1515,  when,  as  aforesaid,  his  patron  Philip 
conducted  her  as  a bride  to  Denmark,  and  he  may  have  gone  in  the 
royal  suite. 

About  this  time  Mabuse  was  greatly  interested  in  hands.  He 
had  always  drawn  them  with  pleasure.  In  his  early  Adoration  of 
the  Magi  in  the  National  Gallery,  the  hands  throughout  are  markedly 
graceful  and  studied.  They  have  a yet  greater  prominence  in  the 
Madrid  Christ  between  the  Virgin  and  John  Baptist.  Yet  in  his 
early  portraits  they  are  quiescent  and  often  conventional.  In  the 
very  first,  as  we  noted,  they  are  almost  copied  from  Memling.  A 
similar  conventionalism  lingers  on  in  the  Amsterdam  so-called  Philip 
of  Burgundy  of  about  1516.  Just  then  Mabuse  began  to  use  his 
sitters’  hands  as  a prominent,  characteristic,  and  expressive  feature. 
The  admirable  man’s  portrait  in  the  F.  B.  Pratt  Collection  in  New 
York  may  be  cited  as  a conspicuous  case  in  point.  The  hands  are 
active  and  individual.  They  do  not  draw  attention  away  from  the 
head.  They  enforce  it  and  help  to  make  the  whole  of  the  visible 
part  of  the  man  expressive  of  his  personality.  In  early  portraits 
the  head  alone  speaks.  Neck  and  shoulders  merely  support  it, 
and  might  be  anyone’s.  Now  into  pose,  gesture,  the  wearing  of 
clothes,  and  all  else  Mabuse  infuses  the  quality  and  nature  of  his 
human  subject.  The  first  example  of  the  change  is  the  Budapest 
Charles  V.  Was  the  innovation  his  own  ? Possibly.  But  Massys 
was  similarly  affected  about  the  same  time,  as  we  have  observed  in 
the  portrait  of  Peter  Gillis  painted  in  1517.  The  Pratt  portrait 
must  have  been  painted  later  than  that,  but  the  Charles  V earlier. 
Carondelet,  Mabuse’s  constant  patron,  was  a friend  and  correspon- 
dent of  Erasmus,  It  is  not  impossible  that  he  may  have  seen  the 
double  portrait  and  even  procured  sight  of  it  for  Mabuse,  though 
that  is  a hardy  guess.  Mabuse,  at  any  rate,  may  thus  have  heard 
of  it,  but  such  innovations  are  in  the  air.  They  express  the  move- 
ment of  ideals  in  a society.  Individual  artists,  the  crowd-exponents, 


376 


MABUSE 


give  to  those  ideals  a visible  form.  The  change  in  the  attitude  of 
men  to  religion,  which  caused  pictures  of  sacred  subjects  at  this  time 
to  become  so  unemotional  for  all  their  tearing  of  passion  to  tatters, 
was  accompanied  by  a new  interest  in  actual  life,  an  increased 
individualism,  a higher  human  self-consciousness.  Changes  in 
art-forms  of  necessity  followed,  and  the  gesturing  hands  of  Massys, 
Mabuse,  Sotte  Cleve,  and  others  proclaim  the  new  age  as  definitely 
as  do  the  writings  of  Erasmus  or  the  tracts  of  Luther. 

Portraits  of  like  significance  are  the  man  in  a fur  cloak  in  the 
National  Gallery  (No.  946)  and  the  parade  picture  at  Berlin,  said  to 
depict  Charles  of  Burgundy,  another  of  Philip  the  Good’s  left- 
handed  grandchildren.  Here  was  a man  with  a good  opinion  of 
himself,  which  he  expressed  in  the  splendour  of  his  attire  and 
accoutrements.  No  need  to  ask  him,  as  Theodore  Hook  asked  the 
swaggering  gentleman  in  Pall  Mall,  “ Pray,  sir,  might  you  be  some- 
body in  particular  ? ” He  is  not  merely  dressed  in  fine  clothes  ; he 
wears  them  ; they  become  in  the  picture  a part  of  himself.  His 
expression  transcends  his  face  and  directs  the  folds  of  his  cloak 
and  the  pointing  of  his  finger.  These  hands,  I think,  indicate  that 
Mabuse  had  paid  a recent  visit  to  Bruges,  where  his  attention  had 
been  arrested  by  the  wonderful  hands  in  John  van  Eyck’s  Paele 
altar-piece.  In  Mabuse’s  mood  those  hands  were  of  overwhelming 
interest,  so  that  he  could  never  again  forget  them.  Probably  this 
Bruges  visit  had  something  to  do  with  Carondelet,  that  comfortable 
pluralist  who  since  1520  had  been  provost  of  St.  Donatian’s.  He 
wanted  his  portrait  painted  once  more,and  Mabuse  may  have  gone  to 
Bruges  to  paint  it.  Indeed,  just  now  Carondelet  was  quite  keen  on 
being  portrayed.  About  or  before  1525  he  sat  to  Quentin  Massys  for 
the  fine  three-quarter  length  in  the  Havemeyer  Collection,  and  he 
caused  Van  Orley  to  make  a repetition  of  it  with  some  changes. 
The  picture  supplied  by  Mabuse,  now  in  the  Gutmann  Collection  at 
Vienna,  is  a fine  presentment  of  Palermo’s  Archbishop  just  passing 
out  of  middle  age.  It  is  not,  however,  as  Archbishop  but  as  Provost 
of  St.  Donatian’s  that  he  here  appears — a monumental  portrait 
indeed.  Carondelet  was  a little  man,  short  by  nature  and  now  grown 
stout.  We  behold  him  in  his  white  fur-trimmed  vestment,  square- 
shouldered, his  prayer-book  clutched,  rather  than  held,  in  his  hands 
— hands  obviously  drawn  in  reminiscence  of  those  of  Canon  George 


HIS  FAILING  POWERS 


377 


van  der  Paele,  who  had  died  upward  of  eighty  years  before.  Caron- 
delet’s  head  is  silhouetted  against  a dark  background,  adorned  and 
framed  with  a decoratively  inscribed  moulding  which  tells  with 
whom  we  are  concerned — a splendidly  modelled  head,  square,  solid, 
intelligent,  thoughtful — one  of  the  best  Mabuse  ever  painted.  The 
opposite  wing  of  the  diptych  (in  Tournay  Museum)  carries  a corre- 
sponding half-length  of  St.  Donatian,  obviously  done  in  rivalry  of 
Van  Eyck’s,  carrying  the  same  crozier  and  wearing  the  same  jewelled 
mitre  and  embroidered  vestments,  but  with  another  morse.  That 
was  also  no  doubt  the  actual  property  of  the  church — a recent  gift, 
Carondelet’s  maybe,  for  it  is  in  the  style  of  the  early  sixteenth 
century.  This  diptych  alone  would  substantiate  the  high  rank  of 
Mabuse  among  artists  of  all  ages.  Anyone  who  will  compare  what  is 
visible  of  the  right  hand  in  the  bust  portrait  of  a man  at  Copenhagen 
with  the  right  hand  of  Carondelet  in  the  diptych  will  need  no  further 
proof  that  the  pictures  are  approximately  contemporary,  and  the 
forceful  rendering  of  character  in  both  is  similar. 

To  turn  from  these  portraits  to  the  contemporary  Madonna  with 
a bunch  of  grapes  at  Berlin,  or  that  other  at  Vienna  with  the 
sprawling  child,  or  the  yet  more  distressing  Madonna  with  St.  Luke 
which  is  likewise  at  Vienna,  is  an  unpleasant  shock.  For  all  their 
executive  cleverness  they  are  without  artistic  existence  and  need 
not  delay  us  one  moment.  Even  the  Man  of  Sorrows  seated  at  the 
foot  of  a column,  which  was  painted  in  1527,  and  is  known  to  us 
by  a number  of  copies  at  Antwerp,  Ghent,  and  elsewhere,  leaves  us 
altogether  cold.  Moreover,  from  this  time  forward  the  powers  of 
the  artist  began  to  fail.  He  was  about  sixty  years  of  age,  had  worked 
hard  and  played  hard,  perhaps  not  wisely  ; had,  in  fact,  burnt  the 
candle  at  both  ends.  The  fire  had  gone  out  of  him  when  he  painted, 
about  1530  they  guess,  the  portrait  of  a man  in  the  Holford  Col- 
lection, a good  enough  but  uninspired  likeness  of  a stolid  personage. 
The  artist’s  days  were  nearing  their  end.  We  do  not  know  exactly 
when  he  died,  but  he  made  his  will,  probably  on  his  deathbed,  on 
June  30,  1533  ; when  his  name  is  next  mentioned  in  1536  he  was 
no  longer  living. 

I have  not  mentioned  by  any  means  all  the  known  pictures  by 
Mabuse,  and  have  omitted  many  a Madonna  and  portrait,  but  cited 
enough  to  show  what  manner  of  man  and  artist  he  was.  Weisz’s 


378 


MABUSE 


monograph^  and  Friedlander’s  list  and  notes  will  enable  the  student 
to  fill  out  the  picture  for  himself.  A few  drawings  by  him  are  also 
known  ‘ and  some  prints  which  are  named  and  commented  on  by 
Weisz.  They  add  little  to  our  knowledge  of  the  painter. 

Mabuse  did  not  form  a retinue  of  followers.  His  works  influ- 
enced his  contemporaries,  notably  Bernard  van  Orley,  and  some  of 
his  pictures  were  abundantly  copied,  but  such  imitations  as  the 
Madonna  in  the  Schnitzler  (formerly  Trotti)  Collection,  which  was 
shown  in  the  Golden  Fleece  Exhibition,  and  another  at  Berlin 
are  rare.  Portraits  falsely  attributed  to  him  are  commoner. 
Vasari  wrote  that  “ Giovanni  di  Mabuse  fu  quasi  il  primo  che 
portasse  d’ Italia  in  Fiandra  il  vero  modo  di  fare  storie  piene  di  figure 
ignude  e di  poesie,”  a statement  requiring  much  modification,  for 
his  nudes  were  borrowed  rather  from  contemporary  engravings 
than  from  study  of  the  antique,  and  he  owed  more  to  Diirer  than 
to  the  Italians.  He  may  have  done  something  to  bring  Italian 
influence  to  bear  upon  Northern  artists,  but  not  much.  That  was 
part  of  the  great  Renaissance  movement.  Changes  of  form  fol- 
lowed changes  of  ideal,  and  were  not  produced  by  mere  copying 
or  imitation  of  the  work  of  particular  artists. 

The  one  man  Mabuse  may  have  strongly  impressed  was  Lambert 
Lombard  (born  1506)  of  Liege,  who  studied  under  him  at  Middel- 
burg.  I do  not  propose  to  discuss  his  paintings,  many  of  which 
and  of  his  drawings,  engraved  in  the  sixteenth  century,  are  known 
from  the  prints.’  The  pictures  attributed  to  him  in  catalogues  of 
galleries  and  sales  are  usually  not  his.  Thus,  one  group  of  Last 
Suppers  is  by  an  anonymous  painter  now  named  after  them  ; 
other  pictures  are  by  an  artist  known  as  the  pseudo-Lombard. 

1 E.  Weisz,  Jan  Gossart,  Parchim  i.  M.,  1913. 

2 Figure  designs  in  the  Albertina  and  at  Frankfurt  and  a late  one  for  a Pieta  at  Berlin 
reproduced  in  Jahrb.  Pr.  Kss.,  1915,  p.  229.  In  this  I can  find  no  connexion  with  the 
Hugo  van  der  Goes  picture  cited  in  the  accompanying  text,  beyond  the  distant  relation- 
ship of  a common  school.  Quite  lately  Dr.  Winkler  has  also  published  an  important 
pen-and-ink  drawing  of  the  Mystic  Marriage  of  St.  Catherine,  in  the  Print  Room  at  Copen- 
hagen, signed  on  the  hem  of  St.  Catherine’s  dress  “ Henn  in  Gosar  ” ; and  in  this  con- 
nexion it  may  be  noted  that  up  to  1516  the  artist  always  uses  the  Flemish  form  for  his 
Christian  name,  which  he  symptomatically  afterward  discards  for  “ Joannes.”  See 
Winkler  in  the  Berlin  Jahrbuch,  vol.  xlii  (1921),  pp.  5 sqq. 

® His  work  has  been  ably  discussed  by  Prof.  A.  Goldschmidt  in  the  Berlin  Jahrbuch, 
vol.  xl  (1919),  pp.  206  sqq. 


LAMBERT  LOMBARD 


379 


Some  genuine  existing  paintings  and  drawings  by  him  can  be  pointed 
out,  but  they  are  not  eminent  works  of  art.  He  is  here  mentioned 
because  he  was  an  interesting  and  cultured  person,  more  important 
probably  as  an  architect  than  as  a painter,  and  as  a teacher  and 
talker  about  art  than  either.  He  was  archaeologist,  numismatist, 
poet,  and  orator,  a kind  of  sixteenth-century  Lord  Leighton. 
He  did  not  await  a visit  to  Italy  before  studying  the  antique,  but 
collected  objects  of  Roman  art  discovered  locally,  and  thus  laid 
the  foundations  of  a knowledge  and  taste  which  he  enlarged  when 
travelling  to  Rome  in  the  suite  of  Cardinal  Pole.  Van  Mander 
says  that  he  also  visited  Germany  and  France.  After  these  wan- 
derings he  settled  at  Liege  and  opened  a school  in  which  many  artists 
studied.  The  best  known  were  Frans  Floris,  William  Key,  Hubert 
Golzius  the  antiquary,  and  Lampsonius,  who  is  better  remembered 
as  writer  than  artist.  It  was  recorded  as  remarkable  that  I^ambert 
“ could  talk  about  his  style,  and  in  the  presence  of  some  old  pictures 
could  tell  at  what  time  they  were  painted,”  which  faculties  are 
delightful  to  exercise,  but  experience  shows  that  so  far  from  being 
helpful  they  are  often  injurious  to  the  creative  powers  of  a true 
artist.  The  value  of  Lambert  Lombard’s  contribution  to  actual 
art-production  in  his  own  country  is  difficult  to  estimate.  Northern 
artists  have  never  been  improved  by  their  attempts  to  imitate  the 
forms  or  to  express  the  ideals  of  the  south,  but  they  have  profited 
technically  by  a knowledge  of  foreign  methods  and  processes.  We 
are  not  informed  about  Lambert’s  routine  of  teaching.  Possibly 
he  did  more  to  quicken  the  interest  and  understanding  of  intelligent 
amateurs  than  to  develop  in  artists  their  powers  of  expression,  but 
the  wise  men  of  his  day  held  him  in  repute,  and  after  his  death  at 
Liege  in  1566  he  was  honourably  remembered. 

Passing  mention  may  also  be  made  here  of  the  Antwerp  painter 
Lambert  Rycx,  who,  in  1555,  became  a member  of  the  Guild  of 
St.  Luke  of  his  native  city  and  subsequently  (1557-9  and  again 
1566-72,  the  probable  year  of  his  death)  worked  in  Sweden.  All 
the  paintings  executed  by  him  in  that  country  seem  to  have  perished ; 
but  a signed  and  dated  Madonna  by  him  (1548)  was  discovered  a 
few  years  ago  in  London  and  shows  him  definitely  under  the 
influence  of  Mabuse.^ 

1 See  on  this  artist  and  the  picture  in  question  (now  in  the  collection  of  M.  Carl 
Frisk,  Stockholm)  Borenius  in  the  Burlington  Magazine,  August  1919,  p.  56. 


CHAPTER  XXVI 


THE  ANTWERP  MANNERISTS 

The  name  at  the  head  of  this  chapter  is  that  applied  by  Friedlander 
to  a very  active  group  of  painters  at  work  in  Antwerp  during  the 
first  quarter  of  the  sixteenth  century  and  especially  during  the 
second  half  of  that  period.  The  present  writer  professes  no  special 
knowledge  of  this  group,  and  in  what  follows  makes  no  pretence  at 
originality.  The  pictures  to  be  considered  possess  a decorative 
quality,  but  are  the  reverse  of  attractive  to  one  whose  main  affections 
attach  to  the  work  of  the  fifteenth-century  schools  and  who  only 
descends  to  the  sixteenth  in  order  to  study  the  fading  away  of  the 
old  ideal  and  of  the  style  that  it  created.  The  Antwerp  Mannerist 
pictures  used  to  be  vaguely  classified  together  as  of  the  school  of 
Herri  met  de  Bles.  They  were  so  called  because  a prominent 
painting  of  the  group  in  the  Gallery  at  Munich  bore  the  signature 
Henricus  Blesius.  This  signature  is  now  known  to  have  been 
forged.  Bles  was  a landscape  painter  of  a later  generation,  of  whom 
we  have  already  disposed.  His  true  name  was  Henry  Patinir  ; 
he  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  any  of  the  works  in  question. 

The  ungrateful  task  of  bringing  order  into  the  chaos  of  this 
chapter  of  the  history  of  painting  in  Antwerp  was  undertaken  by 
Dr.  Friedlander.  With  uncommon  opportunities  and  unrivalled 
patience  he  collected  his  materials  through  a long  series  of  years. 
He  piled  up  his  list  of  the  pictures  as  they  emerged  into  the  sale- 
rooms or  the  magazines  of  dealers,  each  in  turn  to  disappear  again 
by  the  absorption  of  the  market.  He  classified  tentatively,  putting 
two  and  two  together,  inventing  provisional  masters — him  of  the 
“ flaming  beard,”  and  so  forth.  He  enlarged,  subdivided,  regrouped, 
redistributed,  and  finally  offered  to  students  a still  provisional 
classification,  wherein  seventy-five  original  pictures  (with  a tail 
of  copies)  are  divided  into  five  groups,  named  in  non-committal 
fashion  after  the  first  five  letters  of  the  alphabet.  The  paper  in 

380 


A TYPICAL  EXAMPLE 


381 


which  these  results  were  made  available  appeared  inl915  in  the  Annual 
of  the  Prussian  Museums  (pp.  65-91)  ; future  researeh  coneerning 
this  branch  of  our  subject  must  be  based  upon  that.  It  is  impossible 
at  the  present  time  to  verify  many  of  Friedlander’s  observations  by 
inspection  of  originals,  and  even  many  photographs  of  them  are 
inaceessible.  How  gladly  would  I have  undertaken  a short  journey 
to  inspeet  them  in  their  homes  when  I was  at  leisure,  but  in 
time  of  war,  as  they  say  in  India  when  a lady  is  not  receiving, 
“ the  door  is  shut  ” ! Now  the  opportunity  may  have  returned,  but 
time  is  laeking. 

Before  giving  an  abstraet  of  Dr.  Friedlander’s  results  let  us 
take  a good  and  characteristic  example  of  the  type  and  examine 
it  briefly.  A triptych  of  the  Holy  Family  surrounded  by  angels 
in  a landseape,  with  Sts.  Catherine  and  Barbara  on  the  wings, 
will  serve  our  purpose  well.  It  belonged  to  the  King,  now  presum- 
ably to  the  Government,  of  Portugal,  and  was  reprodueed  by  the 
Arundel  Club  (1906 ).»  The  subjeet  is  as  old  as  the  Flemish  School  of 
painting,  and  its  general  arrangement  was  fixed.  There  is  nothing 
novel  about  that ; it  is  the  treatment  that  is  new.  Instead  of  a 
dignified  and  solemn  assemblage  we  have  a group  in  movement. 
The  artist  has  sought  after  every  kind  of  variety — variety  of  pose, 
of  oceupation,  of  accessories,  of  bright  colours.  If  the  angels  have 
wings  brilliant  as  a macaw’s  it  is  that  they  may  wave  them  about 
and  make  an  attractive  pattern  of  them.  Their  draperies  and 
ribbons  flutter  in  complicated  curls,  not  in  any  particular  breeze 
but  just  jerked  about  according  to  the  artist’s  whim.  They  turn 
their  heads  this  way  and  that.  Saints  and  angels  have  recently 
passed  under  the  hands  of  a skilful  and  inventive  hairdresser.  Their 
costumes  are  of  the  most  costly  and  in  the  latest  fashion  of  an 
extravagant  day,  with  slashings,  jewelled  trimmings,  puffed  sleeves, 
voluminous  skirts  and  trains,  and  whatever  else  the  contemporary 
Paquin  could  invent.  Barbara  carries  a splendid  ostrich  feather. 
It  almost  looks  as  though  she  and  Catherine  had  been  dressing 
against  one  another.  The  light  is  fancifully  disposed.  It  comes 
from  no  particular  source,  but  is  patched  about  decoratively.  The 

1 An  indifferent  copy  of  the  central  group  was  in  the  Hoogendijk  sale  in  1912 
(No.  57),  and  a reversed  imitation  with  many  changes  in  the  de  Nedouchel  sale  at 
Brussels  in  1902  (No.  22). 

26 


382 


THE  ANTWERP  MANNERISTS 


landscapes  are  eharming,  so  delicately  touched,  with  soft  distances 
and  sparkling  foliage.  Nearer  at  hand  are  entertaining  buildings 
with  outside  staircases  and  angels  walking  up  and  down  them. 
There  is  a wonderful  fountain,  imitated  from  that  in  the  back- 
ground of  Mabuse’s  Virgin  with  St.  Luke  which  was  set  up  at  Mechlin 
about  1515,  thus  approximately  indicating  the  date  of  the  Lisbon 
triptych.  Who  the  painter  was  we  know  not,  nor  does  Friedlander 
attribute  any  other  work  to  his  hand,  but  he  was  about  the  best  of 
the  group,  and  if  the  rest  had  attained  as  high  a decorative  level 
their  productions  would  not  have  been  so  wearisome. 

The  student  should  not  fail  to  observe  that  in  all  these  novelties 
there  is  no  trace  of  Italian  influenee.  Most  people  have  a vague 
sort  of  idea  that  the  change  in  the  forms  and  ideals  of  Nether- 
lands artists  observable  in  the  early  decades  of  the  sixteenth 
century  was  due  to  contact  with  Italy.  That  notion  is  false. 
Both  Massys  and  Mabuse  may  have  erossed  the  Alps  and  modified 
their  technique  somewhat  in  consequence,  but  they  did  not  change 
their  ideals.  The  ehange  in  them  and  in  their  contemporaries 
followed  a change  in  public  taste ; not  till  that  change  had  taken 
place  did  artists  find  it  worth  their  while  to  introduce  into  their 
work  definite  Italian  imitations.  The  style  generated  by  the 
Antwerp  Mannerists  preceded  the  Italianizing  days.  It  was  a 
purely  local  product,  and  would  have  been  followed  by  other 
developments  leading  on  to  another  Rubens  and  a different  Rem- 
brandt if  no  Netherlands  artists  had  made  the  Italian  pilgrimage. 
We  need  not,  therefore,  quit  the  Low  Countries  in  search  of  an 
answer  to  the  question,  How  did  the  style  of  the  Mannerists  arise  ? 
It  is,  however,  a question  to  which  at  the  present  moment  no  full 
or  sufficient  answer  can  be  made.  It  would  be  natural  to  suppose 
that  some  leading  artist  gave  the  impulse  and  that  the  rest  followed 
him.  But  no  such  leader  has  yet  been  identified.  I think  that 
Mabuse  during  his  residence  in  Antwerp  from  1503  to  1508,  before 
his  visit  to  Italy,  may  have  been  an  impelling  force  in  this  new 
direction,  though  it  was  not  exactly  that  which  he  himself  followed, 
nor  did  the  definite  type  of  the  Mannerists  arise  till  after  his 
departure  for  the  South.  Moreover,  the  reader  must  bear  in  mind 
that  throughout  the  whole  period  when  Mannerism  was  rampant  at 
Antwerp  there  were  other  painters,  the  great  Quentin  Massys  at  the 


THE  MASTER  OF  FRANKFURT 


383 


head  of  them,  who  never  yielded  to  it.  The  conditions,  in  fact,  were 
something  like  those  in  London  in  our  own  day,  the  Mannerists 
corresponding  to  the  post-impressionists,  working  in  the  same  city 
and  day  as  a great  artist  like  Sargent,  but  within  an  enclave  and 
in  a style  of  their  own.  The  Mannerists  were  revolutionists. 
They  lived  in  the  midst  of  a rich  and  merry  society  with  plenty  of 
money  to  spend  and  a new  world  to  spend  it  in.  They  were  tired 
of  the  old  courtly  dignity,  and  they  painted  for  the  commercial,  not 
a courtly  class.  What  was  novel,  even  if  it  were  extravagant  and 
bizarre,  had  attractions  for  them.  If  in  name  tied  down  to  the 
old  string  of  religious  subjects,  they  could  treat  them  in  an  irre- 
ligious and  entertaining  fashion,  and  they  proceeded  to  do  so. 
Buyers  justified  them  ; as  long  as  the  taste  lasted  the  Mannerists 
may  have  reaped  a golden  harvest. 

But  the  question  still  remains  unanswered,  where  did  the  style 
eome  from  ? If  only  we  possessed  a score  of  pictures  known  to 
have  been  painted  in  Antwerp  between  the  years  1495  and  1510 
the  answer  would  perhaps  be  easy.  But  up  to  1505  we  ean  point 
to  few  with  certainty.  Hulin  now  says  that  the  man  called  the 
Master  of  Hoogstraten  must  have  been  painting  in  Antwerp  before 
1500,  and  we  have  a group  of  pictures  by  him.*  A Presentation 
in  the  J.  G.  Johnson  Collection  (No.  370)  stands  on  about  the 
level  of  the  corresponding  wing  of  the  Colibrant  triptych  above 
referred  to  in  connexion  with  Goswin  van  der  Weyden — a work 
of  about  1515-17 — but  there  is  nothing  manneristic  about  it.  On 
the  other  hand,  a Madonna  in  the  same  collection  (No,  371),  like- 
wise by  the  Hoogstraten  artist,  shows  some  Manneristic  affinities, 
and  so  does  one  of  his  best  works,  which  is  in  the  Mayer  van  den 
Bergh  Collection.  It  looks,  then,  as  if  he  had  been  a follower  rather 
than  a leader  ; nor  do  his  panels  in  the  Antwerp  Museum  convey 
a different  impression.  Another  artist,  known  as  the  Master  of 
Frankfurt,  not  first-rate  in  importance,  is  thought  to  have  been 
born  before  1470,  and  to  have  worked  at  Antwerp  as  early  as 
1500,*  but  he  belonged  to  the  rival  group  who  followed  Quentin 
Massys ; the  Mannerists  owed  nothing  to  him.  His  nearest 
connexion  with  them  was  his  notable  copy  of  the  saints  on  the 

* Jahrb.  Pr.  Kss.,  1913,  p.  73. 

2 See  H.  Weizsacker’s  study  of  him,  Zeits.f.  christl.  Kunst,  x (1897),  p.  1. 


384 


THE  ANTWERP  MANNERISTS 


wings  of  the  above-mentioned  Lisbon  triptych.  They  are  in  the 
Pannwitz  Collection  at  Grunewald  near  Berlin,  and  I have  not 
seen  them.  He  must  have  been  influenced  by  Quentin  in  the 
first  years  of  his  mastership.  There  is  no  certainty  that  he  was 
a Netherlander  by  birth  ; he  may  quite  as  well  have  come  from 
the  Lower  Rhine,  drawn  to  Antwerp  by  the  eminence  of  its  art- 
school  in  Quentin’s  days.  A good  many  pictures  have  been 
identified  as  his.  He  was  working  at  Frankfurt  about  1504,  and  he 
painted  the  altar-piece  now  at  Munich  (Nos.  60-62)  after  1511, 
for  the  Carthusians  of  Cologne.  It  is  one  of  his  latest  works. 
The  attempt  to  identify  him  with  the  recorded  Frankfurt  painter, 
Conrad  Fyol,  has  been  abandoned,  but  like  Barthel  Bruyn  he 
belongs  to  the  German  rather  than  the  Flemish  School.  In  some 
respects  he  was  akin  to  and  perhaps  influenced  by  Joos  van  Cleve, 
who  likewise  had  Rhenish  connexions.  He  copied  Jan  Joest’s 
Nativity  in  a picture  belonging  to  the  Valenciennes  Museum.' 
His  best  work  is  the  altar-piece  of  St.  Anne  (with  details  imitated 
from  Campin)  which  is  in  the  Frankfurt  Historical  Museum.  If 
the  speculative  attribution  to  him  of  the  portraits  of  a bride  and 
bridegroom  on  a panel  in  the  Auspitz  Collection  could  be  upheld 
we  should  have  to  admit  that  under  the  combined  influences  of 
the  Hausbuch  Master  and  Joos  van  Cleve,  he  learned  in  Germany 
to  paint  very  attractive  portraits,  but  the  donors  in  his  altar-pieces 
possess  no  such  merits.  We  need  not  delay  over  him  in  this  place. 
He  must  be  discussed  at  length  by  writers  on  German  art. 

Mention  may  here  be  made  of  another  Antwerp  artist  whose 
quality  is  not  to  be  measured  by  the  little  we  know  of  him  and  the 
small  number  of  his  identified  works.  This  is  Jan  de  Cock,  father 
of  Mathias  Cock,  the  landscape  painter  already  referred  to,  and  of 
Jerome  Cock,*  the  engraver  and  publisher  of  engravings  after  the 
designs  of  his  brother  Mathias,  Jerome  Bosch,  Peter  Bruegel,  and 
many  more.  We  do  not  know  the  date  of  his  birth,  but  he  became 
a master  in  the  Antwerp  Guild  in  1506,  rose  to  be  dean  in  1520, 
and  died  before  1527.  A picture  in  the  Von  Bissing  Collection 
at  Munich,  representing  St.  Christopher  in  a landscape  of  Patinir 
type,  has  been  recognized  as  by  Jan  de  Cock  from  the  inscription 

' French  Primitives  Exhibition,  No.  115,  phot.  Giraudon. 

2 See  Friedlander  in  Berlin  Amtl.  Ber.,  April  1915. 


JAN  DE  COCK 


385 


on  an  engraving  after  it,  “ pictum  I.  Cock.”  Its  date  was  probably 
after  Patinir’s  arrival  at  Antwerp  in  1515.  Other  paintings  by 
the  same  artist  are  a Crucifixion  triptych  (No.  47)  and  a Circum- 
cision (No.  45),  both  in  Amsterdam  Museum,  and  a landscape 
with  the  Hermits  Paul  and  Anthony  in  the  Liechtenstein  Collec- 
tion.^ The  first  two  are  works  of  traditional  character,  scarcely 
if  at  all  Manneristic.  The  third  is  an  original  and  delightful 
picture.  The  artist  has,  indeed,  taken  some  inspiration  from  Diirer’s 
woodcut  (B.  107)  of  the  same  subject,  but  he  has  not  indulged  in 
facile  imitation.  The  standing  cross  with  bell  attached  is  his 
only  loan.  The  two  old  men  are  a pathetic  pair  seated  on  banks 
under  trees,  and  gesturing  at  one  another — one,  Bosch-like,  shrouded 
in  a great  hood,  the  other  in  his  own  long  hair.  The  gnarled  tree- 
trunk  in  the  foreground  is  not  more  weather-beaten,  nor  less  uncanny 
the  raven  who  has  just  tossed  a loaf  on  the  ground  between  them. 
The  artist  has  felt  the  decorative  value  of  his  trees  and  rocks,  and 
used  their  lights  and  darks  wisely  in  the  pattern  of  his  piece. 
He  has  painted  plants  skilfully  in  the  foreground  and,  with  a just 
sentiment,  almost  closed  out  the  distance.  Yet  more  reminiscent 
of  Bosch  is  a woodcut  designed  by  Cock,  but  wrongly  attributed 
to  Bosch  himself.^  The  temptation  so  to  name  it  was  strong, 
for  the  subject  is  the  temptation  of  St.  Anthony,  and  the  quaint 
devils  peeping  over  were  obviously  suggested  by  the  Master  from 
Bois-le-Duc.  In  none  of  these  works  do  I find  evidence  of  attach- 
ment to  the  Mannerist  group. 

The  notable  triptych,  which  belonged  to  Messrs.  Durlacher  and 
was  referred  to  above  (p.  299),  reminds  us  of  the  Mannerists  in 
several  of  its  details.  The  angels  overhead  with  their  flapping  and 
curling  draperies  are  Manneristic.  St.  Joseph  might  have  stepped 
out  of  the  Brussels  Magdalen  Altar-piece  (Group  C).  The  black  king 
lifting  his  cloak  to  display  his  leg,  the  feather  in  the  halberdier’s 
cap,  the  type  of  the  hairy  king,  and  the  architectural  backgrounds 
all  show  a relation  to  the  Mannerists,  but  as  the  David  connexions 
point  to  a date  nearer  1515  than  1510  the  picture  cannot  be  re- 
garded as  a Manneristic  innovation.  It  must  be  the  work  of  a 
David  pupil  shortly  after  his  arrival  at  Antwerp,  and  under  the 

1 No.  204  in  the  Diisseldorf  Exliibition  (1904),  and  reproduced  in  the  memorial  volume. 

Reproduced  in  Lafond’s  Bosch.  Marks  on  the  tower  appear  to  be  the  date,  1520. 


386 


THE  ANTWERP  MANNERISTS 


influence  of  a newly  made  contact  with  an  existing  and  developed 
style. 

I now  propose  to  deal  with  the  five  groups  of  the  Mannerists 
as  framed  by  Friedlander,  but  briefly,  because  the  student  must 
refer  to  the  original  article  and  the  general  reader  will  not  care 
to  devote  much  attention  to  the  subject.  Friedlander’s  Group  A, 
approximating  in  style  to  the  Lisbon  triptych,  consists  of  five 
or  six  pictures,  including  that  Adoration  of  the  Magi  at  Munich  which 
used  to  carry  the  forged  signature  Henricus  Blesius.^  In  these 
pictures  architecture  is  prominent,  and  the  figures  in  three  of  them 
are  on  a relatively  small  scale.  They  pose  and  strut  a good  deal. 
The  painting  is  delicate  and  means  to  look  so.  The  artist  is  fond 
of  feathers  and  likes  to  put  two  or  three  curly  ones  in  a cap. 
He  also  makes  a good  deal  of  play  with  the  calves  of  men’s  legs. 
The  hair  of  the  women  is  so  tightly  drawn  back  as  to  convey 
an  impression  of  incipient  baldness.  The  hats  and  headgear 
of  men  and  women  are  fantastic.  If  the  New  York  picture  is  by 
the  same  artist  as  the  others,  which  I cannot  believe,  it  is  more 
attractive  in  every  sense.  The  curly  head  of  Francis  seems  an 
echo  from  Mabuse. 

Friedlander  suggests  the  possibility  that  Group  A may  contain 
the  earlier  works  of  the  master  to  whom  the  pictures  in  his  Group  B 
are  due.  These  are  sixteen  in  number.  He  thinks  that  they  may 
be  attributed  to  the  recorded  Antwerp  painter,  Jan  de  Beer, 
who  was  born  about  1475.  In  1490  he  entered  on  his  apprentice- 
ship under  Gielis  van  Everen,  a Brussels  painter  who  had  settled 
at  Antwerp  in  1477  and  conducted  a busy  workshop  there  till 
his  death  in  1512.  Jan  de  Beer  became  a Master  in  the  guild  in 
1504.  He  took  pupils,  filled  offices  in  the  guild,  had  a son  Aert, 
who  was  a good  glass-painter.  He  was  dead  in  1536.  The  principal 
pictures  belonging  to  this  group  in  England  are  a triptych  at 
Longford  Castle,  a panel  painted  on  both  sides  in  the  Cook  Collec- 
tion, and  a Virgin  with  St.  Anne  in  the  Northbrook  Collection. 
At  Milan  is  a well-known  Magi  triptych  and  a Virgin  with  St.  Luke. 
Two  Prodigal  Son  roundels  are  at  Basle,  a triptych  of  the  Nativity 

1 The  others  are  Prado,  Magi,  No.  1171  (Anderson,  16,128)  ; Coll.  Pourtales  wings 
(Burlington  Mag.,  Mareh  1908,  p.  387)  ; Ghent  Mus.,  Magi ; Berlin  K.F.M.  (630  C.) ; 
Beheading  of  John  Baptist ; and  (doubtful)  New  York,  St.  Franeis  in  Church. 


PLATE  XIX 


3.  JAX  DE  COCK.  SS.  P.\.UL  .\NU  .\XTIIONY.  VIEXX.V.— p.  385. 


AXTNYEP.P  iMAXXERlST  A. 
M.ADKIU.— p.  38G. 


1.  AXTW'ERP  SCHOOL.  LISBOX  PALACE, 
p.  381 . 


2.  THE  SfASTER_OF  FR.VXKFURT.— p.  381. 


[To  lace  page  386. 


JAN  DE  BEER 


387 


in  Cologne  Museum  (Coll.  Dormagen),  and  a Crucifixion  in  the 
Archbishop’s  Museum.  Berlin  has  a triptych,  the  Cluny  Museum 
a Magi,  Turin  a Pieta,  and  there  was  an  Annunciation  in  the  Emden 
sale  (No.  88).  There  is  also  a signed  drawing  in  the  British 
Museum,  dated  1520,  which  serves  as  slender  link  to  attach  the 
name  of  Jan  de  Beer  to  the  whole  group.  Other  published  drawings 
by  the  same  hand  are  a Death  of  St.  Anne  at  Frankfurt,  a Marriage 
of  the  Virgin  in  the  Albertina,  and  a Pieta  in  the  Van  der  Poll 
Collection  at  Haarlem.  Friedlander  names  seven  more. 

This  considerable  body  of  work  expresses  not  merely  a fashion 
but  a personality,  inventive,  rather  superficial,  and  with  a sense 
of  decorative  rather  than  expressive  values.  Friedlander  lays 
stress  on  the  Milan  triptych,  as  an  example  of  his  exuberant  in- 
ventiveness, crowded  as  it  is  with  conceits  and  overhead  a-flap 
with  angels,  or  rather  with  draperies  containing  angels.  The 
Longford  picture  is  less  overwhelming  but  not  less  decorative. 
The  saints  on  the  wings,  disproportionately  large  for  the  figures 
on  the  middle  panel,  are  reminiscent  of  Bruges  traditions,  but 
coarsely  invigorated  and  naturalized,  in  marked  contrast  with  the 
purely  fanciful  beings  who  surround  the  enthroned  Virgin.  The 
Annunciation  of  the  Emden  Collection  is  perhaps  De  Beer’s  most 
attractive  picture,  exuberant  with  decorative  detail.  The  angel 
comes  hurrying  and  fluttering  down,  a marked  contrast  to  the  quiet 
Virgin  at  her  prayers.  The  event  takes  place  in  an  interior  rich 
with  carved  and  other  architectural  detail.  An  excellent  sense 
of  space  is  given,  and  we  feel  the  depth  and  height  of  the  enclosed 
area  and  the  place  of  the  figures  in  relation  to  their  surroundings. ‘ 
A similarly  just  sense  of  space  marks  the  painting  on  one  side  of 
the  large  panel  in  the  Cook  Collection,  depicting  the  incident  of 
Joseph’s  rod  bursting  into  flower  and  the  High  Priest  catching 
hold  of  him  by  the  cloak  when  he  was  trying  to  slip  away.  The 
narrative  interest  is  predominant,  and  the  story  well  told,  but 
the  artist  was  almost  as  much  entertained  by  his  own  combina- 
tion of  sweeping  curves  of  shoes,  swords,  feathers,  and  draperies. 
On  the  back  is  a Nativity  of  a type  descending  from  Geertgen, 
with  the  light  proceeding  from  the  Babe.  Even  the  central 

^ There  is  a copy  of  this  picture  at  Munich  (No.  145),  whilst  such  Annunciations  as 
one  in  the  Fitzwilliam  Museum  at  Cambridge  may  owe  something  to  it. 


888 


THE  ANTWERP  MANNERISTS 


square  manger  is  a Duteh  feature,  introduced  in  the  South  by  Hugo 
van  der  Goes,  but  the  hysterical  angels  are  of  Antwerp  and  their 
day.  The  Basle  roundels  of  the  Prodigal  Son,  being  in  the  nature 
of  genre,  owe  more  to  life  and  less  to  fancy  than  the  religious  pictures. 
They  contain  some  admirable  figures.  If  the  Berlin  and  Turin 
Pietas  are  by  the  same  hand,  they  show  a failing  of  power,  and 
it  is  strange  if  an  artist  who  designed  the  well-proportioned  archi- 
tecture of  the  Emden  Annunciation  likewise  designed  the  limbs 
of  a building  so  out  of  harmony  with  one  another  as  those  of  the 
ruin  behind  the  Cluny  Adoration.  All  these  pictures  are  the  pro- 
duct of  whimsical  invention  rather  than  observation.  The  artist 
can  seldom  have  employed  models  for  his  figures.  He  troubled 
little  about  the  bodies  inside  the  draperies.  He  was  more  con- 
cerned with  pattern  than  subject,  and  more  entertained  by  the 
multiplicity  of  his  fancies  than  by  objects  and  persons  beheld 
by  the  eye  ; but  Friedlander  is  right  to  recognize  in  him  a distinct 
artistic  personality  whose  work  was  not  lacking  either  in  originality 
or  in  influence  upon  less  mercurial  contemporaries.  When  I look 
at  his  pictures  and  those  of  his  fellow  Mannerists  I am  reminded 
of  the  description  which  an  old  Dutch  whaler  gave  of  a rival. 
He  called  him  “ een  Jonck  ende  outrequidant  persoon  sich  zeer 
violentelijck  comporterende  ” — an  overweening  young  fellow  of 
violent  behaviour.  Such  in  the  domain  of  art  were  the  Antwerp 
Mannerists  and  such  was  Jan  de  Beer. 

The  pictures  included  in  Friedlander’ s C group  may  be  more 
summarily  dismissed.  The  most  popular  of  them  was  an  Adora- 
tion of  the  Magi  frequently  copied  and  imitated.  Friedlander 
recognizes  as  the  original  a version  in  the  J.  G.  Johnson  Collection 
(No.  383).  Why  so  strained  and  artificial  a composition  should 
have  been  so  much  liked  is  difficult  to  understand.  Other  treat- 
ments of  the  same  subject  are  in  the  Groote  Collection  at  Kitsburg, 
and  the  Frankfurt,  Carlsruhe,  Hamburg,  and  Buckingham  Palace 
Galleries.  All  lack  the  vivacity  and  inventiveness  of  Jan  de 
Beer.  They  are  merchantable  commodities  rather  than  works 
of  art.  A couple  of  Madonnas  are  more  attractive.  In  both, 
St.  Catherine  and  another  saint  sit  on  the  ground  on  either  side  of 
an  enthroned  Virgin.  One,  which  was  in  the  Dollfus  Collection, 
is  imitated  from  the  De  Somzee-Hoe  triptych  named  above  in 


GROUP  C 


389 


connexion  with  Goswin  ; the  other,  formerly  in  the  Barker  Col- 
lection and.  auctioned  in  Paris  in  1877,  is  modified  from  the  same 
composition,  with  vines  elambering  over  the  back  of  the  throne 
and  playful  cherubs  replacing  the  arabesques  in  the  frieze  above/ 
A closely  similar  eherub  frieze  is  on  the  faee  of  the  mantel  of  the 
fireplace  in  a drawing  at  Rotterdam  signed  “ Petrus  van  Aelst.” 
The  women  are  unusually  pretty,  and  their  dressmaker  had  merit. 
A relatively  large  Last  Supper  in  the  Kaufmann  Collection,  painted 
on  linen,  is  a pleasant  variety  among  the  monotonous  Adorations, 
and  gives  an  opportunity  for  elaborate  architectural  decorative 
features.  The  sense  of  depth  is  laeking  and  there  is  little  humanity 
about  the  figures,  whose  gestures  are  often  absurd  and  the  ex- 
pressions of  their  faces  emphatically  meaningless.  On  the  other 
hand,  the  painting  of  decorative  features  is  minute,  the  furniture 
carefully  studied,  the  tiled  floor  elaborately  heraldic,  and  the 
background  full  of  entertainment.  This  painter  would  have  been 
better  employed  as  a house  decorator,  and  that  may  have  been  his 
occupation. 

Another  Last  Supper  is  among  the  pictures  of  the  D Group. 
It  is  connected  with  the  preceding  by  the  fashion  of  a chair  and  the 
introduction  of  a dog  and  bread-basket  on  the  floor  in  front,  but 
otherwise  it  is  quite  different.  The  figures,  less  well-drawn, 
are  now  erowded  together,  and  the  faees  are  more  portrait-like  ; 
but  this  and  its  fellows  are  dull  works.  The  artist  who  painted 
the  Linnich  altar-piece  and  is  called  after  it  has  been  associated 
with  this  group. ^ 

In  his  E group  Friedlander  ineludes  thirty-three  pictures 
beside  copies  of  some  of  them.  He  had  previously  referred  to  the 
painter  as  “ the  Master  of  1518  ” from  his  eight  painted  panels 
thus  dated  (some  borrowed  from  Durer’s  woodcuts)  which  form 
the  wings  of  a earved  altar-piece  of  Antwerp  provenance,  set  up 
in  1522  in  St.  Mary’s  at  Lubeck  and  there  still  visible.  His  best- 
known  picture  is  a triptych  at  Brussels  (No.  560),  with  the  supper 
at  Simon's  in  the  middle  and  the  raising  of  Lazarus  and  Assumption 

1 A third  version  by  another  hand  was  No.  219  in  the  Golden  Fleece  Exhibition  at 
Bruges  in  1907. 

2 Other  works  attributed  to  him  are  Nos.  317  and  546-550  in  Cologne  Museum, 
formerly  attributed  to  Patinir,  a Temptation  at  Nuremberg,  a Sibyl  in  Vienna  Academy 
(called  Lucas  van  Leyden),  and  two  panels  at  Schleisshehn. 


390 


THE  ANTWERP  MANNERISTS 


of  the  Magdalen  on  the  wings.  It  used  to  be  attributed  to  Mabuse, 
and  shows  a certain  dependence  upon  him,  especially  in  the  elaborate 
carved  staircases  and  gallery  behind.  A picture  well  known  to 
English  students  is  an  Adoration  of  the  Magi  belonging  to  Lord 
Carew.  Friedlander  has  identified  it  as  belonging  to  an  altar-piece 
other  panels  of  which  were  a Visitation  and  Flight  in  the  National 
Gallery  (Nos.  1082  and  1084),  and  a Christ  among  the  Doctors 
in  the  Mayer  van  den  Bergh  Collection.  There  is  little  Mannerism 
about  these  paintings,  but  rather  a visible  dependence  on  the  old 
Bruges  tradition,  so  that  we  are  led  to  suspect  the  painter  to  have 
been  some  pupil  of  Gerard  David  who  settled  in  Antwerp.  The 
thrusting  forth  of  the  knee  by  one  of  the  kings  and  his  young 
attendant  points  to  Mannerist  tendencies,  but  in  abeyance.^  The 
Brussels  triptych  shows  a further  departure  from  Bruges  traditions, 
but  rather  under  the  influence  of  Mabuse  than  of  Jan  de  Beer. 
The  painter  must,  in  fact,  have  seen  Mabuse’s  Virgin  with  St.  Luke 
of  1515,  now  at  Prague,  but  originally  at  Mechlin,  and  taken  from 
it  the  trick  of  perching  'putti  on  his  cornices  ; we  thus  obtain 
an  approximate  date  for  the  triptych.  Obviously  the  architectural 
flummery  entertained  him  more  than  the  figures,  and  their  drapery 
more  than  their  faces.  The  absurd  misplacement  of  Christ’s  right 
foot  exemplifies  his  carelessness  in  the  rendering  of  depth.  The 
picture  lacks  all  sense  of  space.  Friedlander  groups  with  it  a 
“ Christ  taking  leave  of  the  Virgin  ” at  Berlin,  but  in  that  the 
figures  are  wrought  out  with  far  more  care  and  solidity,  and  they 
are  projected  against  a meritorious  landscape.  For  all  the  wringing 
of  hands  the  picture  plentifully  lacks  sentiment  and  the  action  of 
Christ  is  almost  disdainful.  The  Neuwied  Adoration  and  that  at 
Dresden  (which  may  be  only  a copy  of  a lost  original)  are  examples 
of  his  later  period,  and  both  are  thoroughly  impressed  with 
Mannerism — the  Virgin  seated  low,  the  King’s  leg  protruded, 
heads  bent  over  to  one  side,  draperies  a-flutter,  and  fussy  subordi- 
nate flgures  away  off  in  the  background.  Friedlander  cites  half  a 
dozen  copies  of  the  Dresden  Magi,  but  states  that  most  of  them  come, 
not  from  the  studio  of  the  artist  who  designed  them,  but  from 
that  of  the  so-called  Master  of  the  Last  Suppers.  He  appears 


The  Bolivian  Madonna  (cf.  p.  367)  may  belong  to  this  early  period  of  the  painter. 


PLATE  XX 


1.  ANTWERP  JIANNERIST  B.  COLL.  EMDEN. 
p.  387. 


3.  ANTWERP  MANNERIST  D.  CARLSRUIIE. 
p.  38<J. 


4.  ANTWERP  MANNERIST  I'..  COLL.  LORD 
C.VREW.— p.  3>J0. 


[To  face  page  390. 


PETER  COECK  OF  ALOST 


391 


to  think  that  the  latter  took  over  and  carried  on  the  workshop 
of  the  former  as  any  other  tradesman  might  succeed  to  a going 
concern  ; such  was  the  level  of  mere  manufacture  to  which  the 
production  of  pictures  had  fallen  at  Antwerp  in  that  very  com- 
mercial day. 

Peter  Coeck  of  Alost  has  by  some  been  identified  with  this 
Last  Supper  painter,  for  reasons  which  may  be  good,  but  have  not 
yet  been  fully  declared.  According  to  Van  Mander,  this  “ artistic 
and  learned  ” person  was  pupil  to  Bernard  van  Orley.  He  became 
Master  in  the  Antwerp  Guild  in  1527,  studied  in  Italy,  and  was 
sent  to  Constantinople  by  Brussels  tapestry-makers  to  get  com- 
missions from  the  Sultan.  He  had  Peter  Bruegel  for  pupil  and 
posthumous  son-in-law.  He  was  author,  or  rather  translator,  of 
books  on  architecture.  In  1550,  when  in  the  service  of  Charles  V 
as  painter,  he  died  at  Antwerp.  His  chief  work  seems  to  have 
been  the  designing  of  tapestries.  Among  several  pictures  recorded 
as  by  him,  mention  is  made  of  a small  Last  Supper  which  in  1544 
belonged  to  Peter  Lizaert  of  Antwerp.  It  has  been  suggested  that 
this  was  one  of  the  small  Last  Suppers  whereof  several  examples 
exist,  dated  in  every  year  from  1527  to  1532. ^ Of  that  composition 
there  is  a poor  engraving  by  Goltzius  ; a print  of  it  in  the  Dutuit 
Collection  was  inscribed  in  an  old  handwriting  “ Pierre  van  Aelst 
invenit.”  The  painter  of  the  Last  Suppers  must  have  been  acquainted 
with  Leonardo’s  design,  which  fact  by  no  means  suffices  to  send 
him  to  Italy,  nor  is  the  visible  Italian  influence — Ferrarese,  perhaps 
— in  details  of  the  work  conclusive.  It  might  have  been  derived 
at  second-hand.  The  composition  is  a great  improvement  upon 
that  of  the  Kaufmann  picture  in  Group  C,  but  it  belongs  to  the 
same  school,  and  the  types  of  several  of  the  heads  will  be  recognized 
as  common  property  among  the  Mannerists.  Here,  however. 
Mannerism  has  passed  by.  Its  redundancy  has  been  pruned,  its 
types  monumentalized,  and  this  has  evidently  been  the  result  of 
Italian  influence,  so  that  there  is  a balance  of  probability  in 
favour  of  an  Italian  visit  before  1529  by  the  Master  of  the  Last 
Suppers,  whether  he  was  called  Peter  Coeck  of  Alost  or  by  some 
other  name.  At  one  time  he  was  tentatively,  but  wrongly,  identified 

1 The  Duke  of  Rutland’s  is  dated  1527.  One  that  in  1885  belonged  to  Mr.  S.  Barlow 
of  New  York  was  dated  1528. 


392 


THE  ANTWERP  MANNERISTS 


with  Lambert  Lombard,  for  no  other  reason  than  beeause  that 
painter  is  reeorded  to  have  exeeuted  a large  wall-painting  of  the 
Last  Supper  in  the  north  transept  of  St.  Paul’s  at  Liege  in  1529. 
It  was  a mere  guess  that  the  panel  pietures  might  repeat  that 
eomposition. 

No  less  than  twenty-four  pictures  were  attributed  by  Valen- 
tiner  to  this  Master,  now  called  of  the  Last  Suppers,  but  he  did 
not  include  the  Last  Suppers  among  them.^  The  key  picture 
after  which  he  named  the  painter  was  an  Adoration  of  the  Magi 
at  Utrecht.  It  was  guessed  he  might  have  been  a pupil  of  Van 
Orley.  Friedlander  has  taken  a few  items  out  of  the  list  and  put 
them  into  his  E group,  and  he  particularly  points  out  that  the  wings 
of  the  Utrecht  triptych  are  a more  energetic  and  modern  rendering 
of  the  figures  in  the  Czernin  Triptych  by  his  E painter.  A somewhat 
similar  relation  holds  between  the  renderings  of  “ Christ  taking 
leave  of  His  Mother,”  at  Glasgow  and  Berlin,  which  are  by  the 
same  two  painters,  and  there  are  various  little  technical  tricks 
(such  as  the  method  of  painting  the  hair-parting)  which  unite  them. 
It  is,  however,  beyond  the  purpose  of  the  present  chapters  to  follow 
in  any  detail  the  work  of  these  second-rate  artists.  The  student 
who  desires  to  do  so  must  seek  guidance  elsewhere. 

Two  Antwerp  painters,  whose  names  are  fortunately  known, 
likewise  belonged  to  the  Mannerist  group.  They  are  Adrian  van 
Overbeke  and  Dirk  Vellert.  The  former,  who  became  master 
in  the  Antwerp  Guild  in  1508,  painted  an  altar-piece  five  years 
later  for  Kempen.  It  exists,  but  I have  not  seen  it.  The  other, 
Dirk  Vellert,  who  used  to  be  known  as  Dirk  van  Star  from  his 
signature  till  Gliick  revealed  his  true  name,  was  mainly  a designer 
and  maker  of  glass  paintings.  As  the  probable  designer  of  the 
great  set  of  painted  glass  windows  which  are  the  glory  of  the 
chapel  at  King’s  College,  Cambridge,^  he  is  of  special  interest 
to  English  amateurs.  The  date  of  his  birth  is  unknown  ; he  became 
a master  in  the  Antwerp  Guild  in  1511,  the  same  year  as  Joos  van 
Cleve.  He  was  dean  in  1518  and  1526.  Diirer  became  his  friend 
and  they  exchanged  gifts,  red  paint  from  Vellert,  woodcuts  from 

1 See  Repertorium,  1905,  pp.  254  ff. 

2 See  the  Vienna  Kss.  Jahrbuch,  xxii,  pp.  10  if.,  and  artieles  by  Beets  in  Onze  Kunst, 
190G-7,  and  in  the  Burlington  Magazine,  October  1907,  p.  33. 


DIRK  VELLERT 


393 


Diirer,  and  Vellert  entertained  the  Nuremberg  artist  at  a banquet 
in  May  1521.  He  is  mentioned  again  in  1539-40  as  supplying  a 
window  to  the  Cathedral.  His  last  dated  work  is  an  engraving 
inseribed  1544. 

Friedlander’s  sharp  eye  and  quiek  memory  recognized  in  a 
triptych  which  was  in  the  Lippmann  Collection  a painting  by  Dirk 
Vellert.  It  may  be  ascribed  to  his  period  of  varied  activity  between 
the  years  1520  and  1530.  It  is  our  justification  for  introducing 
the  artist  at  this  point.  The  picture,  in  which  the  figures  are  very 
well  drawn,  belongs  decidedly  to  the  Mannerist  group  and  approxi- 
mates to  the  E series.  The  extraordinarily  supercilious  Virgin  is 
almost  comic,  and  so  is  the  posturing  of  the  King  whose  back  is 
turned  toward  us.  The  facial  type  of  the  kneeling  King  is  no  less 
peculiar,  but  for  all  that  the  picture  has  obvious  merit  and  one 
of  the  wings  is  charming.  The  thin  and  fluid  paint  has  been  applied 
by  a thoroughly  instructed  craftsman.  If  Vellert  painted  few 
pictures  it  was  not  for  lack  of  skill,  but  because  he  had  other  occu- 
pation. We  are  not  ignorant  what  that  was,  because  he  is  always 
spoken  of  as  a glass-painter,  and  we  possess  a good  number  of 
designs  for  glass  roundels  by  him  and  one  actual  cartoon  in  the 
Albertina  for  a five-light  window.  The  roundel  designs  are  numerous 
from  the  year  1523,  mostly  made  in  sets  for  windows  of  houses.  They 
are  excellently  composed  for  their  purpose  and  with  obvious  ease. 
They  indicate  that  the  Manneristic  phase  had  passed.  There 
are  examples  at  Berlin,  Weimar,  the  Albertina,  Frankfurt,  and 
in  some  private  collections.  The  decorative  purpose  is  evident 
in  all.  Gliick  reproduced  one  actual  glass  roundel  which  is  earlier 
than  any  of  the  designs.  It  is  dated  1517,  and  signed  with  the 
artist’s  name,  not  with  the  initial  and  star  which  puzzled  a previous 
generation  of  students.  Here  we  find  our  artist  borrowing  figures 
from  Italian  engravings,  but  using  them  with  freedom.  It  was 
the  very  year  in  which  Mabuse  was  painting  Italian  imitations. 
With  Vellert  the  imitating  and  borrowing  phase  passed  ; by  1523 
he  could  design  with  readiest  inventiveness.  A roundel  in  the 
Chapel  of  the  Holy  Blood  at  Bruges  is  likewise  ascribed  to  Vellert 
by  Beets. 

The  drawings  give  no  indication  of  the  intended  colouring,  and 
must  have  been  guides  for  the  assistants  whose  business  it  was  to 


394 


THE  ANTWERP  MANNERISTS 


outline  the  full-size  cartoons  on  which  the  colouring  would  be  shown. 
As  a draughtsman,  Vellert  is  precise,  vigorous,  and  assured.  There 
is  no  fumbling  about  his  lines,  no  appearance  of  hesitation  or  doubt. 
He  fills  the  area  given  to  him,  balancing  his  masses  and  co-ordinating 
his  lines  to  the  spectator’s  entire  satisfaction.  The  tradition  of 
the  Mannerists  helped  him  here,  or  was  it  the  other  way  about  ? 
Did  the  popularity  of  stained  glass  react  upon  the  panel- painters 
and  make  them  so  eager  to  fill  all  their  space  with  figures  and 
decoration  ? 

Vellert’ s friendship  with  Durer  may  have  stimulated  in  him  the 
wish  to  try  his  hand  at  engraving.  The  presence  of  Lucas  van 
Leyden  in  Antwerp  in  1522  and  the  evidence  of  the  success  he  and 
Diirer  both  had  in  the  disposal  of  their  prints  may  have  decided 
Vellert  to  make  the  experiment.  Probably  Lucas  gave  him  some 
technical  instruction  in  the  methods  of  the  craft,  for  his  first  plates 
were  produced  by  the  same  process  of  mixed  etching  and  engraving 
which  Lucas  at  that  time  employed,  having  himself  learnt  it  from 
Diirer.  Twenty  engravings  by  Vellert  are  known,  the  earliest 
of  them  dated  August  16,  1522.  Four  others  followed,  before  the 
end  of  the  year.  They  are  small  prints  of  fanciful  subjects,  a 
Child  with  a Dolphin,  Bacchus  on  a barrel,  and  such  like.  Next 
year  Vellert  experimented  with  pure  etchings,  again  small,  but  he 
evidently  preferred  the  mixed  process  and  returned  to  it  for  such 
more  carefully  designed  and  elaborately  finished  plates  as  the  Virgin 
and  Child  with  St.  Bernard  of  1524  and  the  Virgin  with  St.  Luke 
of  1526.  In  the  latter  year  Vellert  was  for  the  second  time  Dean 
of  the  Guild  of  St.  Luke,  and  must  have  made  this  engraving 
for  the  guild  or  its  members.  It  is  an  admirable  piece  of  decoration 
in  black  and  white,  fanciful,  and  but  dimly  suggestive  of  the  solid 
world  of  actuality  or  of  human  emotion  in  the  people  portrayed. 
In  the  same  year  he  designed  a woodcut  device  also  for  his  guild, 
and  of  this  an  impression  has  fortunately  come  down  to  us.  That 
he  made  such  a device  at  this  time  is  recorded,  and  that  it  was  cut 
on  wood  and  printed  on  quarter- sheets  for  the  guild.  It  was  this 
record,  coupled  with  the  faet  that  the  woodcut  is  signed  with  his 
initials,  “ D'*^V,”  that  enabled  Gliick  to  prove  the  identity  of  the 
so-called  Dirk  van  Star  with  Dirk  Vellert. 

^ The  central  panel  of  a triptych  in  the  Prado  (No.  2202)  is  copied  from  this  print. 


DIRK  VELLERT 


395 


A much  larger  engraving  than  any  of  these  represents  the 
Flood  and  bears  the  date  1544.  It  seems  a long  interval  since  1526. 
Some  competent  authorities  hold  that  the  engraving  dates  from 
the  twenties  and  that  the  plate  was  touched  up  and  re-dated  in 
the  later  year.  One  wonders  why  no  impression  of  the  original 
state  of  so  large  a plate  should  have  survived.  It  is  an  elaborate 
effort  filled  with  figures  in  energetic  action,  but  lacks  the  decorative 
quality  of  the  prints  we  have  been  examining ; it  is,  moreover,  a 
distraught  composition  ; the  behaviour  of  the  scattered  folk  is 
futile  and  the  note  of  tragedy  lacking.  In  any  case  it  serves  to 
emphasize  the  fact  that  after  1526  Vellert  practically  ceased  to 
publish  new  engravings.  We  may  assume  that  his  glass-painting 
filled  his  time.  1526  is  the  date  of  important  contracts  for  the 
windows  at  King’s.  They  had,  indeed,  been  ordered  (or  some  of 
them)  in  1516,  but  only  four  had  been  completed.  By  the  new 
contract  six  windows  were  to  be  delivered  within  twelve  months 
and  twelve  within  the  following  four  years.  A later  contract 
was  for  tw^o  more  before  May  1528  and  other  two  before  May  1531. 
The  names  of  the  contracting  glaziers  are  unfortunately  not  recorded. 
Internal  evidence  points  to  Dirk  Vellert  as  the  most  important 
designer  of  this  great  series.  From  1526  on  for  several  years  he 
must  have  had  his  hands  full,  and  the  cessation  of  his  engravings 
is  explained  ; nor  do  we  find  any  dated  drawings  for  glass  roundels 
by  him  during  these  busy  years  till  1532. 

Vellert  doubtless  was  responsible  for  many  windows  in  other 
places  which  have  been  destroyed  or  escaped  identification.  Beets 
thinks  he  has  found  one  in  the  church  of  St.  Gervais  in  Paris  and 
the  design  for  it  in  the  British  Museum.^  Whether  this  ascription 
be  accepted  or  not,  our  artist  may  be  content  to  rest  his  fame 
on  the  great  and  miraculously  preserved  Cambridge  series,  so 
rich  and  splendid  in  decorative  effect.  What  they  represent  can 
still  be  discovered  by  whoso  cares  to  examine  them  in  detail.  Those 
of  us  to  whom  they  were  familiar  through  the  long  years  of  our 
youth  will  probably  be  the  first  to  admit  that  we  were  little  conscious 
of  their  subjects  but  did  not  fail  to  revel  in  their  splendour.  I 
suspect  it  was  the  splendour  far  more  than  the  subjects  that 


Revue  de  I'Arl,  xxi,  pp.  393-6. 


396 


THE  ANTWERP  MANNERISTS 


employed  the  imagination  of  their  ereator.  What  he  aimed  at  he 
attained,  and  that  was  well  worth  while.  If  it  was  necessary 
for  the  school  to  pass  through  the  stage  of  Mannerism  to  reach 
this  new  glory,  who  shall  decry  the  Mannerists  or  call  down  oppro- 
brium on  their  accomplishment  ? Mannerism  was  a passing  phase. 
It  may  have  been  a necessary  one. 


CHAPTER  XXVII 


JAN  JOEST,  BARTHEL  BRUYN,  AND  THE  VAN  CLEVES 

Though  only  four  pictures  by  Jan  Joest  are  known,  he  is  an 
important  link  in  the  history  of  Netherlands  painting.  Fortunately, 
two  of  these  pictures  consist  of  many  panels  and  give  an  extended 
idea  of  the  artist’s  style  and  eapaeity.  They  are  : — 

Twenty  panels  of  the  wings  of  the  high  altar-pieee  in  the 
church  of  St.  Nicholas  at  Calcar. 

An  altar-piece  of  eight  panels  in  the  Cathedral  of  Palencia. 

A Pieta  at  Sigmaringen. 

A Nativity  in  the  Von  Bissing  Colleetion. 

Beside  these  there  was  a Nativity  in  the  Kaufmann  Col- 
leetion, now  thought  to  be  a copy  after  a lost  original  by  Jan 
Joest. 

The  first  oeeurrenee  of  this  artist’s  name  is  in  a list  of  soldiers 
at  Calear  in  1480.  We  do  not  hear  of  him  again  till  the  years  1505 
to  1508,  when  he  was  painting  the  Calcar  wings.  In  1505  we  are 
told  that  Juan  de  Fonseea  in  Brussels  ordered  the  Paleneia  picture. 
We  next  eome  across  the  painter  at  Haarlem,  where  he  bought  a 
house  in  1510.  In  1515  he  was  working  for  the  church  of  St.  Bavon 
there,  and  he  was  buried  in  it  in  1519. 

Though  nothing  is  reeorded  about  Jan  Joest’s  master,  it  is 
fairly  obvious  that  he  reeeived  his  edueation  in  Holland.  The 
Kaufmann  Nativity  depends  on  Geertgen’s  picture,  the  angels 
in  front  being  direetly  imitated  in  the  one  from  the  other.  The 
square  manger  in  the  middle  and  the  bright  illumination  proeeeding 
from  the  Child  are  likewise  the  same  in  both.  In  the  Pieta  at 
Palencia  Geertgen’s  white  cloth  is  used.  Such  correspondencies, 
however,  do  not  suffiee  to  indicate  so  close  a relation  as  that  between 
master  and  pupil.  In  the  Christ  among  the  Doetors,  another  of 
the  Palencia  panels,  a nearer  connexion  is  observable  with  the 

27  397 


898  JAN  JOEST,  BARTHEL  BRUYN,  AND  THE  VAN  CLEVES 


interesting  Holy  Family  at  Dresden  by  the  Dutch  Master  who  also 
painted  the  Virgins  with  St.  Anne.  The  interiors  in  both  are 
illuminated  truthfully  by  the  light  entering  at  the  windows,  and 
the  window-sills  in  both  are  sloped  downward  in  the  same  fashion 
and  with  reference  to  the  lighting.  Correct  illumination  of  figures 
by  window-light  is  so  rare  in  pictures  of  our  school  and  period  that 
this  resemblance  is  important.  The  Dresden  picture  is  some  twenty 
years  older  than  that  at  Palencia  and  might  have  been  painted  by 
Jan  Joest’s  master. 

Jan  Joest’s  pictures  are  not  in  themselves  inspiring.  The 
subjects  are  the  old-fashioned  round,  and  the  treatment  is  conven- 
tional. They  are  all  very  much  on  a level,  and  one  feels  that  the 
painter  could  have  gone  on  turning  out  pictures  of  this  class  and 
quality  in  any  required  number.  He  knew  his  craft  and  might 
be  a good  teacher,  but  he  supplied  by  help  of  a formula  the  lack 
of  an  original  creative  gift.  His  best  picture  is  the  central  panel 
at  Palencia  with  its  two  dignified  and  impressive  figures.  In  the 
others  the  heads  of  sacred  personages  are  emptily  conventional, 
while  those  of  onlookers  are  often  so  full  of  life  and  character  that 
we  may  justly  assign  to  Jan  Joest  the  qualification  of  a good 
portrait- painter.  Some  of  his  heads  are  decidedly  Dutch  in  treat- 
ment. One  day  perhaps  portraits  by  him  may  be  identified. ‘ 
He  owned  the  gift  of  narration,  which  is  best  expressed  where  he 
was  most  free.  Thus  the  Christ  among  the  Doctors  at  Calcar  and 
the  Woman  at  the  Well  are  interesting  compositions  and  the  puzzled 
theologians  not  devoid  of  humour.  His  figures  are  generally  well 
balanced  on  their  feet,  and  the  quieter  the  pose  the  better  the 
drawing.  In  gesture  they  lack  vitality.  Friedlander  speaks 
highly  of  the  small  Nativity  in  the  Von  Bissing  Collection,  which 
I have  not  seen,  but  he  appears  to  me  to  overrate  the  Pieta  at 
Sigmaringen,  whieh  he  reproduces  in  his  book.  Another  Nativity 
in  the  J.  G.  Johnson  Collection  (No.  350)  doubtfully  attributed  to 
Jan  Joest  by  Valentiner  is  rejected  by  Friedlander. 

Two  important  artists  are  recognized  as  proceeding  from 
Jan  Joest : Barthel  Bruyn  and  Joos  van  Cleve.  The  former 

was  born  in  1493,  perhaps  at  Haarlem.  The  painter  Bruyn,  who 

^ A pair  of  good  portraits  at  Nuremberg  were  at  one  time  ascribed  to  him  by  Fried- 
lander, but  he  seems  to  have  changed  his  mind  about  them. 


BARTHEL  BRUYN 


399 


in  1490  was  working  there  for  St.  Bavon’s  Church,  may  have  been 
his  father.  He  probably  learnt  his  craft  in  Haarlem.  We  need 
deal  with  him  but  briefly  because  he  is  principally  known  for  his 
work  on  the  Rhine,  especially  at  Cologne,  where  he  appears  to  have 
settled,  in  or  shortly  before  1515,  and  where  he  died  in  honour  and 
prosperity  between  1553  and  1557.  He  was  some  eight  or  ten  years 
younger  than  Joos  van  Cleve,  but  it  is  more  convenient  to  deal 
with  him  first  in  this  place.  A Nativity  formerly  in  the  Kaufmann 
Collection,  dated  1516,  fixes  his  early  dependence  on  Jan  Joest. 
As  the  latter’s  picture  of  the  same  subject  was  for  many  years 
with  it  in  the  same  collection,  their  relation  was  long  ago  realized. 
Bruyn  had  to  widen  the  composition,  to  its  disadvantage,  in  order 
to  introduce  portraits  of  the  donors.  The  likeness  of  the  man — 
one  Peter  de  Clapis,  Professor  at  the  University  of  Cologne — looks 
for  all  the  world  as  though  it  had  been  painted  by  Mostaert.  The 
Virgin’s  hands  are  the  hands  of  the  Kaufmann  Jan  Joest,  but  her 
head  comes  much  closer  to  that  by  the  same  painter  in  the  Nativity 
at  Calcar.  Even  in  the  picture  of  the  same  subject  at  Essen,  painted 
six  to  eight  years  later,  the  memory  of  his  master’s  composition 
survives.  Another  early  work  painted  by  Bruyn  under  Jan  Joest’ s 
influence  is  a Coronation  of  the  Virgin  triptych  in  the  Hax  Col- 
lection at  Cologne.  The  portraits  on  the  wings  are  disproportion- 
ately large  in  relation  to  the  figures  on  the  central  panel,  and  no 
doubt  he  found  them  more  interesting,  for  he  was  a portrait-painter 
at  heart,  as  were  most  of  the  good  artists  of  that  day.  The  donor 
is  the  same  Peter  de  Clapis  as  above,  but  the  resemblance  in  treat- 
ment to  Mostaert’ s is  not  here  observable.  The  date  of  the  picture 
is  1515,  and  it  is  the  earliest  production  of  Bruyn’s  Cologne  period. 

Similarities  between  the  works  of  Bruyn  and  Joos  van  Cleve 
are  also  numerous,  so  numerous,  in  fact,  that  the  latter  used 
to  be  called  Bruyn’s  master.  Their  relative  ages  do  not  make 
that  relation  impossible,  but  it  is  regarded  as  more  likely  that 
while  one  was  the  assistant  the  other  was  the  pupil  of  Jan  Joest. 
Bruyn  openly  borrowed  figures  and  groups  from  Van  Cleve.  Thus 
the  Moor  King  in  the  Essen  Magi  is  taken  bodily  from  Van  Cleve’s 
small  Dresden  jMagi,  but  both  are  tributary  to  an  earlier  com- 
position exemplified  by  the  important  Bruges-Antwerp  triptych 
which  belonged  to  Messrs.  Durlacher,  and  to  which  we  have  referred 


400  JAN  JOEST,  BARTHEL  BRUYN,  AND  THE  VAN  CLEVES 


in  Chapter  XXI  (p.  299).  The  relation  between  the  two  artists  is 
plainly  expressed  in  Bruyn’s  St.  Victor  altar-piece  of  1529  at 
Cologne,  where  he  has  introduced  their  portraits  side  by  side,  with 
Joos  laying  a patronizing  hand  on  the  painter’s  shoulder.  It 
was  at  Cologne  and  in  Bruyn’s  early  maturity  that  Joos’  influence 
was  strongest — a fact  important  for  the  life-story  of  the  latter, 
as  it  implies  either  a lengthy  residence  by  him  in  the  Rhenish 
city  or  frequent  visits  to  it.  Bruyn  remained  under  the  influence 
of  Joos  van  Cleve  till  Scorel  returned  from  Italy,  when  he  trans- 
ferred his  allegiance  to  the  new  leader. 

The  Weber  Collection  contained  a picture  by  Bruyn  of  the  Virgin 
with  St.  Anne,  a donor,  and  a Saint,  which  not  only  approximates 
to  Joos  van  Cleve  but  links  on  to  the  designs  of  the  Master  of 
Frankfurt.  That  painter,  as  aforesaid,  made  another  close  imitation 
of  Jan  Joest’s  Nativity  in  a picture  now  belonging  to  the  Museum 
of  Valenciennes.  We  know  nothing  about  his  education,  but  as 
he  was  at  work  in  Antwerp  about  1500,  when  Bruyn  was  only 
7 years  old,  and  before  anything  is  known  about  Jan  Joest,  it 
is  a little  difficult  to  know  what  conclusion  we  should  draw  from 
this  coincidence. 

At  Cologne  Bruyn  painted  many  portraits  in  a definite  style  of 
his  own.  It  would  be  interesting  to  discover  for  how  much  of  it 
he  was  indebted  to  Jan  Joest,  but  materials  for  the  comparison 
are  not  forthcoming.  The  resemblance  of  one  early  portrait  to 
the  work  of  Mostaert,  who  was  almost  twenty  years  his  senior, 
suggests  that  he  may  also  have  stood  in  some  kind  of  pupil  relation 
to  him.  The  remainder  of  Bruyn’s  career  belongs  to  the  history 
of  German  rather  than  of  Netherlands  painting  and  need  not  be 
discussed  here. 

Joos  van  Cleve,  whom  it  is  now  customary  to  accept  as  the 
painter  of  the  many  pictures  which  used  to  be  grouped  together 
under  the  name  of  “ the  Master  of  the  Death  of  Mary,”  is  first 
mentioned  in  1511,  when  he  was  registered  as  a master-painter 
in  the  books  of  the  Antwerp  Guild.  There  are,  however,  a pair 
of  wings  by  him  in  the  Louvre,  dated  1507,  so  that  he  was  a master- 
painter  in  some  other  centre  before  then,  unless  he  painted  them 
in  the  service  of  Jan  Joest,  who  sold  them  as  his  own.  We  may 
conclude  that  the  year  of  his  birth  was  perhaps  nearer  1480  than 


JOOS  VAN  CLEVE 


401 


1485.  His  full  name  was  Joos  van  der  Beke  van  Cleve  the  Elder, 
to  distinguish  him  from  his  son,  commonly  known  as  Sotte  Cleve, 
whose  Christian  name,  however,  was  not  Joos  but  Cornelis.  He 
is  mentioned  several  times  in  the  Antwerp  books,  but  between 
intervals  long  enough  to  permit  of  absences  abroad.  We  have 
observed  above  that  he  must  have  spent  a good  deal  of  time  at 
Cologne,  for  which  city  he  executed  many  commissions.  He 
also  worked  in  Italy,  in  England,  and  in  France.  He  died  at 
Antwerp  in  1540. 

Those  Adam  and  Eve  wings  in  the  Louvre,  dated  1507,  are 
ascribed  to  him  with  assurance  by  Hulin,  with  less  confidence 
by  Friedlander.  The  figure  types  recur  in  his  known  works,  as 
for  instance,  in  the  SS.  George  and  Christina  in  the  Cologne 
altar-piece  of  1515.  Joos’  dependence  upon  Jan  Joest  for  his 
teaching  does  not  rest  alone  upon  these  wings,  but  is  declared 
by  the  general  character  of  his  work.  Another  early  picture, 
likewise  in  the  Louvre,  is  the  half-length  Virgin  and  Child  with 
St.  Bernard,  a simple  and  attractive  work  in  which  we  can  see  some 
of  the  elements  of  the  well-marked  style  he  presently  developed. 
The  diamond-shaped  Virgin  and  Child,  sold  in  an  Amsterdam 
auction  (April  30, 1907)  and  later  in  the  hands  of  Messrs.  Durlacher, 
likewise  dates  from  the  early  years  of  his  career. 

A portrait  of  Maximilian,  dated  1510,  is  in  the  Andre  Col- 
lection.i  It  may  have  been  painted  at  Bruges,  but  at  any  rate  in 
Flanders.  At  this  time  our  artist  was  paying  attention  to  the 
work  of  his  great  predecessors.  The  half-length  Madonna  at 
Spiridon’s  was  copied  from  the  Lucca  Madonna  by  John  van  Eyck, 
which  is  now  at  Frankfurt,  and  there  exists  in  America  another 
version  with  St.  Joseph  added.  On  a ledge  or  table  in  front  are 
a bowl  of  fruit,  a knife,  a lily  in  a glass,  and  so  forth — a kind  of 
accessories  first,  I believe,  introduced  on  a foreground  ledge  in 
the  Bruges  School. ^ 

A little  later,  but  still  early,  comes  the  half-length  Virgin 

1 Apparently  the  same  picture,  when  in  the  Haro  Collection,  was  in  the  French  Primitive 
Exliibition  (1904),  No.  121.  There  is  another  version  at  Vienna  and  many  repetitions 
exist.  See  the  Vienna  Kss.  Jahrbuch,  1915,  for  a learned  article  on  the  portraits  of 
Maximilian. 

* An  early  example  of  a flower  thus  placed  is  by  the  Ursula  Master  ; fruit  lies  on  a 
ledge  in  the  anonymous  Bruges  Madonna  of  about  1500  in  the  Andre  Collection. 


402  JAN  JOEST,  BARTHEL  BRUYN,  AND  THE  VAN  CLEVES 


giving  drink  to  the  Child  out  of  a glass.  It  was  in  the  R,  Kann 
Colleetion  (No.  98).  The  cushion  resembles  that  in  the  Louvre 
Madonna,  and  the  landscape  is  of  similar  character  in  both  pictures. 
It  is  a landscape  of  typically  fifteenth  century  Bruges  style.  Slightly 
later  is  a very  interesting  Madonna,  a seated  three-quarter 
length,  belonging  to  Madame  Nielson  in  Paris. ^ It  is  linked  to  the 
Spiridon  picture  by  almost  the  same  foreground  accessories,  but  the 
landscape  is  of  the  later  wide-extended  sort  with  the  impossible 
rocks,  and  might  be  cited  to  indicate  that  the  picture  was  painted 
in  Antwerp.  It  offers,  however,  indications  of  the  influence  of 
Brussels.  This  type  of  Virgin  with  the  Sleeping  Child,  often  repeated 
by  the  Brussels  Magdalen  Master,  was  borrowed  from  Roger  van 
der  Weyden,  as  stated  in  a former  chapter.  The  Virgin’s  head 
in  the  Nielson  picture  bears  a close  resemblance  to  that  in  Roger’s 
Louvre  drawing  (photo.  Giraudon,  428)  ; it  must,  in  any  case, 
be  copied  from  some  Roger,  for  the  type  does  not  recur  in  the  work 
of  Joos  and  does  not  resemble  that  to  which  he  gave  currency. 
His  hand  is  recognizable  in  the  execution,  the  delicate  flesh  colouring, 
the  careful  modelling,  and  his  temperament  is  expressed  in  the 
rather  sugar-sweet  sentiment  of  the  group.  A similar  Virgin  and 
Child  are  on  one  panel  of  a diptych  in  the  L.  de  Liedekerke  Collec- 
tion.^ The  other  panel  bears  a portrait  of  the  Carthusian  general, 
William  Bibaut  of  Thielt.  A half-length  Madonna  in  the  Fitz- 
william  Museum  at  Cambridge  ’ follows  the  ordinary  lines  of  the 
composition  so  far  as  the  position  of  the  figures  is  concerned. 
The  artist  had  the  unhappy  idea  to  make  the  Mother  smile  with 
delight,  and  the  nearest  he  could  come  to  that  expression  was  a 
broad  and  ugly  grin,  but  the  picture  is  famously  painted  and  remains 
in  excellent  preservation.  A school  repetition  in  the  collection 
of  Don  Pablo  Bosch  omits  the  grin  and  replaces  the  white 
headdress  by  one  of  those  transparent  veils  so  often  introduced 
by  our  artist. 

A franker  imitation  of  Roger  is  in  the  J.  G.  Johnson  Collection 
(No.  373) — a copy  of  his  Descent  from  the  Cross  with  only  the 
landscape  added,  and  that  in  the  style,  not  of  Antwerp,  but  of 

1 It  was  No.  6 in  the  Odiot  sale  (1889). 

2 See  photo  in  Revue  de  VArt  chret.,  1913,  p.  376. 

3 A copy  in  the  Trotti  Collection,  Paris. 


JOOS  VAN  CLEVE 


403 


Gerard  David.  Another  and  earlier  picture  of  the  same  subject 
by  our  artist  shows  imitation  of  Campin’ s design.  It  is  in  the 
Dresden  Gallery — “ the  work  of  a beginner,”  Friedlander  calls  it. 
The  same  writer  publishes  as  a product  of  Joos’  early  days  the 
portrait  of  a lady  in  the  Mayer  van  den  Bergh  Collection.  The 
face  is  so  delicately  modelled  as  to  seem  rather  flat  and  the  eyes 
are  incorrectly  drawn,  but  it  is  a pleasing  picture,  all  the  same. 

Joos  van  Cleve  also  laid  Gerard  David  under  contribution, 
as  may  be  seen  in  an  elaborate  Annunciation  now  in  the  Forges 
Collection  in  Paris.  The  general  design  is  borrowed  from  Jan 
Joest’s  Calcar  panel,  but  the  figure  of  Gabriel  owes  much  to  David’s 
in  the  Sigmaringen  Annunciation  of  about  1510. ^ 

In  1511  Joos  van  Cleve  purchased  mastership  in  the  Antwerp 
Guild,  and  that  city  became  his  home  for  the  rest  of  his  days, 
though  he  left  it  from  time  to  time  to  work  elsewhere.  He  now 
came  in  contact  with  Quentin  Massys  and  was  a good  deal  influenced 
by  him.  The  Louvre  contains  a half-length  of  Christ  blessing, 
actually  copied  from  the  same  Massys  design  as  that  also  multiplied 
by  the  Master  of  the  Mansi  Magdalen.  Various  replicas  of  it  exist. 
A corresponding  devotional  half-length  of  the  Virgin  appears  in 
various  collections. ^ A Crucifixion  triptych  in  the  Blumenthal 
Collection  in  New  York  (from  the  Thiem  Collection)  shows  Joos 
imitating  the  Liechtenstein  picture  by  Quentin  or  perhaps  that 
larger  altar-piece  in  Antwerp  Cathedral  which  the  Calvinistic 
rioters  destroyed.  The  landscape  is  in  the  style  of  the  same 
master.  The  Crucifixion  triptych  at  Naples  is  similarly  tributary 
to  Quentin,  and  possesses  the  additional  charm  of  some  excellent 
children’s  portraits  with  those  of  their  parents  on  the  wings.  Both 
triptychs  belong  to  the  early  period  of  the  artist. 

At  about  this  point  we  may  best  introduce  such  pictures  as 

1 The  type  of  the  Virgin  kneeling  in  one  direction  and  turning  round  toward  the 
angel  approaching  her  from  behind  was  never  popular  at  Antwerp,  and  only  of  late  intro- 
duction at  Bruges.  It  is  rather  a North  French  and  German  type.  It  is  found  in  a 
drawing  of  about  1420  in  the  British  Museum  (Vasari  Soc.,  iii,  13) ; in  other  drawings  at 
Berlin  (c.  1490)  and  Coll.  Duval,  in  a picture  of  about  1475,  which  Weale  would  ascribe 
to  John  Hennequart  {Burlington  Mag.,  August  1910),  in  a picture  of  c.  1500  in  the  Chapel 
Royal  at  Granada,  and  in  a well-known  Maitre  de  Moulins.  It  appears  at  Bruges  on  the 
outsides  of  the  wings  of  the  problematical  Durlacher  picture  previously  discussed.  How 
the  type  reached  Jan  Joest  is  a problem.  See  also  Revue  de  VArt  chret.,  1912,  p.  439. 

^ A good  original  in  the  Palazzo  Spinola  at  Genoa. 


404  JAN  JOEST,  BARTHEL  BRUYN,  AND  THE  VAN  CLEVES 


the  Virgin  and  Child  with  St.  Anne  whieh  is  at  Modena.  The 
grapes,  the  glass,  and  the  open  manuseript  with  full-page  miniature 
whieh  oecur  in  Madame  Nielson’s  pieture  are  here  again  to  be  seen, 
but  the  landscape  is  more  developed  and  reminds  us  of  Patinir, 
who  settled  at  Antwerp  in  1515.  From  this  time  on,  landscapes 
of  Patinir  type  are  frequent  in  Joos  van  Cleve’s  pictures,  and 
some,  if  not  all,  of  them  may  have  been  painted  by  Patinir  himself. 
The  figures  in  the  Modena  picture  recall  the  compositions  of  the 
Master  of  Frankfurt.  The  landscape  in  the  Brussels  (No.  349) 
Rest  by  the  Way  must  surely  be  by  Patinir  ; the  figures,  borrowed 
from  Robert  Campin,  are  obviously  by  Joos.  Van  Mander  knew 
of  a picture  in  which  the  two  thus  co-operated.  Bits  of  the  same 
landscape  reversed  appear  on  the  Ince  Hall  Madonna. 

If  it  were  correct  to  date  the  smaller  Dresden  Magi  before  1515, 
Joos  would  be  proved  to  have  undergone  a rather  bad  attack  of 
Mannerism  a few  years  after  his  settlement  at  Antwerp  ; but  the 
date  is  mainly  assigned  in  accordance  with  the  apparent  age  of 
the  painter,  who  has  introduced  into  the  background  his  own 
portrait,  hand  in  breast ; the  face,  however,  is  poorly  characterized 
and  not  very  good  authority.  I am  inclined  to  put  this  picture 
two  or  three  years  after  rather  than  before  1515,  for  the  following 
among  other  reasons.  It  includes  a model,  an  old  man,  who  appears 
also  in  the  two  Hackeney  triptychs  and  in  another  at  Vienna. 
Judging  from  his  head,  I should  place  the  Dresden  picture  third 
and  the  Vienna  triptych  last,  grouping  them  all  between  the  years 
1515  and  1520.  The  dependence  of  this  picture  on  the  Durlacher 
triptych,  above  pointed  out,  makes  a date  before  1515  improbable. 
Of  the  two  well-known  Hackeney  triptychs  depicting  the  Death 
of  the  Virgin,  from  which  the  painter  derived  his  designation 
before  his  name  was  discovered,  the  smaller  (now  in  Cologne 
Museum)  is  dated  1515,  and  the  larger  (at  Munich)  must  have 
been  painted  soon  after  it.  The  smaller  was  made  for  the  family 
house-chapel  of  the  Hackeneys  in  Cologne,  the  larger  for  the 
church  of  Sancta  Maria  auf  dem  Capitol.  The  commission  for 
the  first  can  scarcely  have  been  given  later  than  1514  ; the  second 
may  have  been  delivered  about  1518-20.  The  main  subject  is 
differently  treated  on  the  two  central  panels,  and  it  is  curious 
that  resemblances  to  Jan  Joest’s  corresponding  Calcar  panel 


JOOS  VAN  CLEVE 


405 


are  stronger  in  the  later  picture  than  in  the  earlier.  Joos  van 
Cleve  evidently  found  no  difficulty  in  designing  compositions  of 
many  figures  and  could  tell  the  same  story,  if  required,  in  many 
different  ways.  Neither  picture  is  pleasing.  Both  are  infected 
with  Mannerism.  The  Apostles  pose  and  strain  as  if  they  had  a 
business  on  hand  involving  muscular  effort.  They  are  all  in  rather 
a noisy  bustle,  and  the  last  scene  their  behaviour  suggests  is  the 
bedside  of  a dying  and  beloved  old  lady.  The  wings  are  a good 
deal  better  and  the  women  on  them  possess  charm,  which,  when 
the  ugliness  of  their  menfolk  is  considered,  they  may  largely  owe 
to  the  pencil  of  Joos.  The  landscapes  in  the  smaller  picture  are 
of  old-fashioned  type.  Those  behind  the  larger  are  advanced,  so 
that  we  may  put  the  date  of  the  Patiniresque  change  in  the  painter’s 
style  of  landscape  to  about  the  year  1516.  The  wings  of  the  second 
picture  also  show  progress  in  the  portrayal  of  female  beauty. 
One  of  the  saints  is  pleasing  and  dressed  in  good  taste. 

We  are  now  brought  face  to  face  with  a group  of  pictures  of 
strongly  Manneristic  character  which  we  may  ascribe  to  about 
the  seven  years  around  1520.  It  is  useless  to  examine  more  than 
a few  examples.  The  series  opens  with  the  small  Dresden  Magi, 
a fussy,  overfilled  work  on  which  Joos  must  have  bestowed  a 
monstrous  deal  of  pains.  The  Virgin’s  face  is  not  yet  of  his  mature 
type.  The  Naples  Magi  comes  later.  There  is  no  room  for  more 
than  one  king  on  the  central  panel,  so  the  other  two  have  to  find 
place  on  the  wings.  One  of  them  has  a greyhound  with  the  arms 
of  the  lords  of  Cleves  on  his  collar,  showing  for  whom  it  was  painted, 
and  that  Joos  was  esteemed  in  the  place  where  he  was  probably 
born,  or  from  which  his  family  came.‘  A Magi  triptych  in  the 
Ruffo  de  Bonneval  sale  (No.  8)  likewise  has  a king  on  each 
wing  and  presents  other  resemblances  to  the  Naples  picture. 
Friedlander  includes  it  in  his  Mannerist  group  E (No.  62).  There 
is  obviously  some  connexion  between  the  two,  and  both  are 
impregnated  with  the  same  decadent  spirit.  I am  not  sure  that 
Joos  was  not  the  borrower.  In  the  larger  Dresden  Magi  it  looks 

^ The  deduction  which  Friedlander  makes  from  the  reappearance  of  these  arms  on 
the  copy  in  the  Emden  sale  in  1910  (No.  85)  seems  to  me  unwarranted.  The  copyist 
simply  copied  the  arms  as  he  copied  the  feather  in  the  blackamoor’s  hat.  Moreover, 
the  copy  may  have  been  made  for  the  owner. 


406  JAN  JOEST,  BARTHEL  BRUYN,  AND  THE  VAN  CLEVES 


as  though  the  Manneristic  phase  was  being  worked  off,  but  the 
pieture  is  far  too  erowded  with  fussy  details.  Most  disagreeable 
of  all  is  the  Pieta  at  Frankfurt  (No.  93),  though  it  is  soberer  in 
design.  Sueh  subjects  were  unsuited  to  the  capacities  of  our 
artist,  who  was  a kind  of  belated  Memling,  happy  only  when 
dealing  with  sweet  and  quiet  people.  Of  this  last  picture  we  know 
the  date,  1524,  and  that  it  was  set  up  in  Sancta  Maria  in  Lyskirchen 
in  Cologne  by  the  Senator  Johann  Schmitgen. 

The  years  1519  and  1520  were  eventful  for  Joos  van  Cleve. 
In  them  he  was  appointed  dean  of  his  guild,  hired  a house,  married 
a wife,  and  was  by  her  presented  with  a son  whom  they  named 
Cornelis  and  who  was  destined  to  future  success  as  a painter. 
We  shall  deal  with  his  career  in  the  next  chapter.  It  was  unusual 
for  a master-craftsman  to  remain  a bachelor  so  long.  Perhaps 
he  did  not  settle  down  because  of  commissions  involving  long 
absences  from  Antwerp — to  Cologne,  for  example,  where  he  surely 
must  have  spent  rather  a long  time,  going  perhaps  with  Barthel 
Bruyn  when  he  settled  there  about  1515.  As  to  a possible  journey 
to  Italy  before  his  marriage,  there  is  no  sign  of  one  discoverable 
in  his  pictures  till  towards  the  end  of  his  career. 

In  1520-1,  as  the  reader  will  remember,  Diirer  spent  many 
months  at  Antwerp  and  was  in  close  relation  with  artists  there. 
He  makes  no  identifiable  mention  of  Joos  van  Cleve,  though  they 
can  scarcely  have  failed  to  meet.  When  on  August  5,  1520,  the 
Antwerp  Painters’  Guild  gave  Diirer  a banquet,  Joos,  as  Dean  of 
the  Guild,  may  be  imagined  in  the  chair.  At  any  rate  he  gave  the 
great  man  that  sincerest  flattery  which  consisted  in  copying  one 
of  his  pictures,  the  St.  Jerome  in  his  Cell  (at  Lisbon),  painted 
by  Diirer  at  Antwerp.  Several  repetitions  of  it  issued  from  the 
workshop  of  Joos.  It  will  suffice  to  mention  as  a good  example 
one  in  the  Cels  Collection  at  Brussels. 

The  pictures  on  which  the  repute  of  Joos  chiefly  rests  are  his 
Madonnas,  such  as  those  at  Ince  Hall  and  Vienna.  The  Virgin’s 
type  is  well  defined,  and  is  that  of  the  Virgins  in  the  Naples  and 
larger  Dresden  Adorations.  It  does  not  appear  before  1515.  We 
are  driven  to  conclude  that  these  Madonnas  were  painted  during 
the  very  years  in  which  he  was  likewise  producing  the  unattractive 
Mannerist  works  just  discussed.  Did  he  vary  his  style  to  suit 


PLATE  XXl 


3.  BARTIIEL  BRUYN.  COLL.  K.VUF.M.\XX.— p.  399.  4.  .JOOS  VAX  CLEVE.  IXCE  HALL.— p.  407. 


,AS',  CALCAR. 


[To  face  page  406. 


JOOS  VAN  CLEVE 


407 


his  customers  ? The  Ince  Hall  picture  may  be  chosen  as  repre- 
sentative. Friedlander  observes  that  one  of  the  angels  is  borrowed 
from  the  Morrison  triptych.  That  seems  to  indicate  a fairly  early 
date.  The  Virgin’s  head  is  delicately  modelled,  in  faet  so  are  all 
the  heads,  with  pretty  complexions,  sweet  expressions,  and  no 
little  animation.  There  is  a good  deal  to  remind  us  of  Mabuse. 
Joos  must  have  been  familiar  with  his  work  and  found  it  sympathetic. 
He  again  introduces  the  bunch  of  grapes,  the  nice  glass  cup  and 
cover,  the  sharp-pointed  knife,  and  the  inevitable  half-orange 
and  eherries.  He  has  also  sought  out  a carpet  of  novel  design, 
and  endowed  his  picture  with  every  attraction  he  could  think  of, 
yet  without  any  of  that  overcrowding  and  over-gesturing  which 
makes  the  works  of  the  Mannerists  disagreeable.  Evidently  his 
Madonnas  were  popular  and  there  was  a demand  for  them  ; hence 
the  numerous  still  existing  repetitions  of  one  or  two  types.  Such 
was  the  Holy  Family,  best  represented  by  the  example  in  the 
Holford  Collection.  The  Child  is  lying  forward  in  His  Mother’s 
arms,  and  playing  with  the  string  of  crystals  round  His  shoulders. 
In  the  National  Gallery  version  and  many  other  replicas  the  Child 
stands  up  and  embraces  the  Virgin’s  bosom,  while  in  a version 
in  the  Blumenthal  Collection  in  New  York  He  is  being  nursed  in 
her  lap.  These  pietures  are  not  great,  but  they  are  pleasing  works 
of  art,  sweet  in  domestic  sentiment,  though  devoid  of  religious 
emotion. 

A large  altar-piece  in  the  Louvre,  with  a Mourning  over  the 
Dead  Christ  in  the  ehief  panel,  a St.  Francis  in  the  lunette,  and  a 
Last  Supper  imitated  from  Leonardo’s  in  the  Predella,  came  out 
of  the  church  of  Santa  Maria  della  Pace  at  Genoa,  and  may  be  held 
as  evidence  of  a visit  by  Joos  van  Cleve  to  Italy.  Three  other 
pietures  by  him  were  likewise  in  the  same  city,  and  may  have  been 
painted  for  Genoese  patrons  ; they  are  the  Crucifixion  now  in 
the  Blumenthal  Collection,  the  Magi  still  at  St.  Donato’s,  and  the 
larger  Dresden  INIagi.  Certainly  the  easiest  explanation  is  to 
presume  that  the  painter  resided  for  a time  on  the  shores  of  the 
Mediterranean.  Yet  he  need  not  have  gone  even  as  far  as  Milan 
to  fall  within  the  area  of  Leonardo’s  influence.  That  was  rampant 
in  the  France  of  his  days,  and  we  have  good  evidence  of  Joos’  activity 
as  a portrait-painter  at  the  Court  of  Francis  I.  Guicciardini 


408  JAN  JOEST,  BARTHEL  BRUYN,  AND  THE  VAN  CLEVES 


relates  that  when  that  king  sent  to  the  Netherlands  for  a good 
portrait- painter,  Joos  van  Cleve  was  chosen  “ among  others  ” — 
the  reference  is,  perhaps,  a vague  one  to  John  Clouet  and  Corneille 
de  Lyon — and  that  he  went  to  France  and  painted  the  portraits 
of  the  King,  the  Queen,  and  various  princes.  Friedlander  assigns 
to  Joos  the  originals  of  two  groups  of  portraits  of  Francis  I and 
Eleonore  of  Austria.  Good  examples  of  both  are  at  Hampton 
Court.  In  the  same  gallery  is  likewise  a portrait  of  Henry  VIII 
assigned  to  about  1525,  while  the  French  pictures  are  placed  about 
1530.  I should  like  to  approximate  the  years  a little  more  closely. 
In  any  case,  visits  by  our  artist  to  both  England  and  France 
are  implied. 

Was  Joos  van  Cleve  led  by  what  he  heard  and  saw  of  the  work 
of  Leonardo  in  France  to  make  a journey  to  Italy  ? Or  was  he 
summoned  to  Genoa  to  fulfil  some  profitable  orders  ? The  latter 
seems  a more  probable  alternative.  In  any  case,  it  was  the  art  of 
Leonardo  that  he  studied,  drawn  to  it,  no  doubt,  by  his  own  pre- 
dilection for  delicate  modelling.  The  Louvre  picture  with  its 
semicircular  lunette,  and  its  predella  is  divided  after  an  Italian, 
not  a Flemish  fashion.  It  is  interesting  to  observe  how  Joos 
translated  into  Northern  types  the  heads  of  Leonardo’s  Apostles. 
The  server  at  the  end  of  the  table,  a man  apparently  between 
forty  and  fifty  years  of  age,  stout  and  hearty  but  rather  ill-tempered 
of  aspect,  is  supposed  to  be  a portrait  of  the  painter,  but  is  a man 
of  entirely  different  type.  The  Mourning  is  not  one  of  his  best 
compositions.  It  is  emotionless  and  some  of  the  gestures  are  comic. 
The  landscape  could  not  be  mistaken  for  Patinir’s,  but  is  reminiscent 
of  him.  The  colouring  is  rather  different  from  that  of  the  painter’s 
middle  period,  and  may  mark  a change  brought  about  in  Italy. 
It  is  characteristic  of  his  last  decade. 

Popular  pictures  of  the  Children — Christ  and  John  Baptist — 
embracing  one  another  were  copied  from  a well-known  Leonardo 
design.  The  best  example  is  at  Naples.  Flemish  repetitions  are 
not  uncommon,  and  there  are  others  by  Luini,  Marco  d’Oggiono, 
and  some  more  Italians.  Evidently  the  picture  was  a favourite 
with  Netherlands  painters,  for  they  often  imitated  one  or  other  of 
the  children  in  their  works,  and  there  exists  a group  of  Madonnas 
of  the  school  of  Van  Orley,  in  which  the  Child  has  been  lifted  out 


JOOS  VAN  CLEVE 


409 


of  this  picture  and  vaguely  placed  against  His  mother’s  bosom, 
but  sprawling  in  the  air  and  with  no  other  baby  to  kiss.‘ 

M.  Salomon  Reinach  cites  a version  of  the  Holford  type  of 
Holy  Family  above-mentioned  in  which  the  Child  is  in  the  same 
posture  as  in  Leonardo’s  Benois  Madonna.  The  picture  in  question 
is  or  was  in  the  Schouwaloff  Gallery  at  Petrograd.^  Another 
imitation  of  the  same  Madonna  attributed  to  a follower  of  Joos 
van  Cleve  is  in  the  Magdeburg  Gallery.  We  are  led  back  to  another 
Leonardo  design  by  the  various  Netherlandish  and  Italian  repeti- 
tions of  it  exhibited  under  the  name  of  the  Virgin  with  the  Cherries. 
Several  came  out  of  the  workshop  of  Joos,  and  he  may  have  been 
the  artist  who  gave  vogue  to  it  in  the  Netherlands.  The  con- 
torted position  of  the  Child  was  too  much  for  the  draughtsmanship 
of  some  of  the  copyists.  Perhaps  the  best  example  belongs  to 
Mr.  E.  G.  Spencer-Churchill.  A photograph  of  it  was  published  by 
the  Arundel  Club.  Flemish  imitations  are  forthcoming  of  another 
Leonardesque  Madonna  in  which  the  Child  sits  upon  her  lap,  facing 
her,  and  rests  His  head  against  her  bosom.  A good  example  is 
in  the  Liverpool  Gallery,  and  another  was  in  the  Grimaldi  sale 
(Genoa,  1899),  but  neither  of  these  pictures  came  from  the  work- 
shop of  Joos.  The  Liverpool  picture  is  perhaps  the  best  of  all  the 
Flemish-Lombard  imitations. 

As  examples  of  Joos  van  Cleve’ s latest  period,  I will  name  only 
two  pictures  : the  Crucifixion  at  Boston  (from  the  Weber  Collection) 
and  the  St.  John  at  Patmos  recently  sold  by  Messrs.  Colnaghi  and 
Obach.’  In  both  it  seems  to  me  that  the  landscape  has  been 
painted  in  by  a new  hand.  That  of  Patmos  is  certainly  not 
independent  of  Patinir’s  setting  for  the  Martyrdom  of  St.  Catherine 
at  Vienna,  and  it  is  to  be  noted  that  the  whole  eomposition  shows 
knowledge  of  Bosch’s  St.  John  at  Berlin.  The  nearest  approxi- 
mation I can  find  to  these  landscapes  is  in  the  work  of  Lucas 
Gassel,  but  opportunity  fails  me  to  pursue  this  suggestion.  There 
is  an  evident  resemblance  in  the  jutting  rocks  with  vegetation 

^ One  was  in  a sale  at  Lepke’s,  Berlin,  November  21,  1905  (No.  100),  wrongly  attri- 
buted to  Mabuse.  Others  in  the  Peltzer  sale  (1914),  No.  16 ; in  the  German  Museum  at 
Nuremberg ; and  in  the  Holscher-Stimipf  Collection  at  Berlin.  See  Monatshefte  f.  K., 
1908,  p.  625. 

2 See  Collections  privies  Russes,  opposite  p.  60. 

® To  whom  I am  indebted  for  an  excellent  photograph  of  it. 


410  JAN  JOEST,  BARTHEL  BRUYN,  AND  THE  VAN  CLEVES 

growing  out  of  them,  in  the  treatment  of  trees,  and  particularly 
in  the  way  buildings  and  tiny  human  figures  are  introduced  into 
the  distance  in  these  two  landscapes,  and  in  one  attributed  to 
Gassel  which  is  in  the  Nijland  Collection  at  Dordrecht.  If  this 
suggestion  is  generally  accepted — and  I think  it  may  be — the  pro- 
bability that  Joachim  de  Patinir  performed  a like  office  for  Joos 
will  be  increased,  and  we  shall  be  able  to  date  between  1515  and 
1524 — ^the  years  of  Patinir’s  life  at  Antwerp — the  pictures  in  which 
landscapes  of  his  style  appear  behind  figures  painted  by  Joos  van 
Cleve.  This  would  be  a valuable  help  toward  a chronological 
arrangement  of  our  artist’s  works. 

Here  let  me  digress  to  say  that  the  more  familiar  I become  with 
pictures  of  the  Netherlands  School  of  the  first  half  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  the  more  am  I persuaded  of  the  co-operative  character 
of  their  production.  There  was  much  mere  picture- manufacture 
then.  Witness  the  multitude  of  repetitions  of  a few  popular 
originals,  often  by  different  artists.  I suspect  that  not  only 
landscape  backgrounds,  but  elaborate  decorative  details,  such 
as  architecture,  brocaded  or  embroidered  draperies,  goldsmith’s 
work,  and  the  like  accessories,  were  in  certain  cases  the  work  of 
specialists.  The  kind  of  investigation  one  would  have  to  under- 
take to  prove  this  proposition  would  be  tedious,  and  the  result, 
if  proved,  incommensurate.  The  fact  of  manufacture  is  obvious  ; 
its  processes  are  unimportant  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  history 
of  anything  worthy  to  be  called  Art. 

A word  in  conclusion  must  be  said  about  Joos  van  Cleve  as 
a portrait-painter.  Existing  portraits  by  him  are  numerous  and 
widely  scattered.  Friedlander  enumerates  a score  and  a half. 
They  are  of  uniform  quality  and  do  not  show  a profounder  insight 
with  advancing  years.  The  most  attractive  is  his  portrait  of 
himself,  which  was  in  the  Kaufmann  Collection.  He  appears  to  be 
from  forty  to  forty-five  years  of  age.  We  possess  two  other  por- 
traits of  him  in  the  backgrounds  of  the  two  Dresden  Adorations. 
In  one  he  looks  rather  less  than  thirty-five,  in  the  other  approaching 
forty.  His  face  does  not  express  an  attractive  character — a canny, 
suspicious  person  one  guesses  him  to  be,  but  precise  like  his  pic- 
tures, and  holding  the  pink  as  he  held  his  brush,  delicately.  It 
is  scarcely  fair  to  judge  his  early  style  by  the  Maximilian  of  1510, 


JOOS  VAN  CLEVE 


411 


because  he  may  have  had  no  sitting  for  that  picture,  but  painted 
it  merely  from  public  observation.  The  mouth  lacks  the  “ singular 
prognathism  ” of  the  original.  The  authors  of  the  catalogue  of 
the  French  Primitives  Exhibition  of  1904  suspect  the  attribution 
and  refer  to  Gagnieres’  copy  of  a portrait  of  Charles  Count  of 
Angouleme,  father  of  Francis  I,  which  they  say  has  the  same 
coiffure  and  the  same  flower,  but  not  the  collar  of  the  Golden  Fleece. 
It  is  a comparison  I have  not  been  able  to  make,  but  even  the  bald 
statement  is  unconvincing.  A pair  of  portraits  by  Joos  are  in 
the  possession  of  Mr.  E.  G.  Spencer-Churchill.  One  is  of  a girl 
in  the  character  of  the  Magdalen,  the  other  of  a boy  in  a feathered 
cap.  If  he  had  been  a prettier  child  the  picture  would  have 
been  more  delightful.  Joos  van  Cleve  could  do  nothing  to  help 
him  out.  Portraits  of  a man  and  his  wife  in  the  Uffizi,  the  latter 
dated  1520,  are  not  by  or  of  Quentin  Massys  as  used  to  be  said. 
Neither  is  this  mild  gentleman  Joos  himself,  though  he  might  be  a 
relative.  They  are  just  a pair  of  Antwerp  folk  nicely  but  un- 
imaginatively depicted,  and  the  portraits  were  probably  the  kind 
of  good  ordinary  likenesses  with  which  sitters  are  pleased.  One 
of  three  portraits  at  Cassel  is  a more  elaborate  effort,  as  far  as 
costume  is  concerned.  It  is  not  painted  with  Mabuse’s  bravura, 
but  it  is  well  enough,  and  the  hat  forms  an  effective  frame  for  an 
intelligent  face.  Some  interest  attaches  to  the  likeness  of  a man, 
one  of  a pair  which  in  the  Ellenborough  sale  passed  into  the  hands 
of  Messrs.  Agnew,i  because  there  is  another  portrait  of  him  in  the 
J.  G.  Johnson  Collection.^  In  that  picture  he  is  stated  to  be 
25  years  of  age,  and  his  coat-of-arms  is  added,  with  six  stars 
on  a broad  dark  saltire,  the  field  being  light  in  tone  ; unfortun- 
ately, the  tinctures  are  not  recorded.  He  is  a little  puffier  in  the 
Philadelphia  version,  but  the  two  cannot  be  separated  by  more 
than  a very  few  years.  The  lady’s  picture  is  one  of  Joos’  best, 
solidly  modelled  and  well  characterized,  notwithstanding  its  plain 
formality.  We  may  assign  it  to  about  the  year  1530. 

Among  the  royal  portraits  painted  by  Joos  the  Henry  VIII 
at  Hampton  Court  is  the  most  interesting,  because  it  shows  us  the 

1 VTio  were  kind  enough  to  give  me  photographs  of  them. 

2 No.  431,  attributed  by  Valentiner  to  a Dutch  artist  of  about  1560,  but  this  date  is 
more  than  a quarter  of  a century  too  late. 


412  JAN  JOEST,  BARTHEL  BRUYN,  AND  THE  VAN  CLEVES 

bluff  king  in  the  heyday  of  his  light-hearted  youth,  and  before 
the  reaction  of  his  deeds  and  mode  of  life  had  made  him  into  the 
horrible  image  he  became.  He  cannot  here  have  reached  the  age 
of  45  which  Friedlander  would  assign  him ; 35  seems  to  me 

an  outside  estimate,  and  I should  have  supposed  him  to  be 
even  less.  Thus,  indeed,  he  might  have  looked  in  1520  (aged  29) 
at  the  Field  of  the  Cloth  of  Gold,  but  the  fashion  of  the  cap 
involves  a later  date.  This  is  the  only  picture  of  the  king  which 
enables  us  to  understand  the  accounts  of  his  bonhomie  and 
attractiveness  in  the  early  years  of  his  reign. 

It  would  be  difficult  to  set  up  a greater  contrast  than  that 
presented  by  the  best  examples  of  the  portrait  of  Francis  I,  such 
as  those  at  Hampton  Court  and  in  the  J.  G.  Johnson  Collection. 
Joos’  visit  to  the  French  Court  is  assigned  roughly  to  about  1530, 
when  he  was  in  the  plenitude  of  his  powers.  The  king  must  have 
given  him  sittings,  and  here  we  have  the  best  the  artist  could  make 
of  him.  The  picture  has  been  highly,  perhaps  extravagantly, 
praised.  “ W^hoever  has  seen  this  picture  has  seen  Francis  I, 
the  man  himself,  neither  more  nor  less  ” : it  is  much  to  say,  the 
writer  estimating  the  king’s  age  at  about  thirty,  which  would  bring 
the  date  down  to  1524.  Evidently  the  artist  took  a great  deal  of 
pains,  as  much  with  the  hands  as  with  the  face,  and  he  must  have 
painted  more  than  one  version  with  the  same  head,  but  changed 
costume  and  gesture  of  the  right  hand.  It  is  a self-indulgent 
looking  person  that  we  have  before  us,  who  is  beginning  to  grow 
coarse  and  will  become  coarser  as  the  years  go  on.  If  Fried- 
lander is  correct  in  attributing  the  original  of  numerous  versions 
of  the  portrait  of  Eleonore  of  Austria,  at  Hampton  Court,  Vienna, 
and  elsewhere,'  to  our  artist,  it  cannot  have  been  made  before 
1530,  the  year  of  her  marriage  to  Francis  I,  and  that  would 
confirm  the  date  to  which  we  have  assigned  the  king’s  likeness. 
Hers  is  a parade-picture  in  a costume  dominated  by  its  large 
sleeves,  but  the  face  maintains  the  supremacy  of  its  interest. 
Such  a portrait  might  have  given  the  satisfaction  vouched  for 
by  Guicciardini. 

At  his  best,  then,  we  may  call  Joos  van  Cleve  a good  but  not 

' There  are  versions  at  Chantilly  and  in  Lord  Roden’s  possession,  differing  from  one 
another  in  various  details. 


SOTTE  CLEVE 


413 


inspired  portrait- painter.  There  was  not,  in  faet,  any  great 
quality  about  his  art.  He  was  a good  craftsman,  trained  in  a 
good  school,  and  inheriting  a good  tradition  to  which  in  the  main 
he  adhered.  If  he  went  astray  in  the  direction  of  Mannerism 
and  attempted  dramatic  effects  altogether  beyond  the  reach  of  his 
powers  and  gifts,  he  paid  the  penalty  by  handing  down  as  part  of 
his  memorial  a certain  number  of  bad  pictures.  But  he  left  many 
that  are  still  found  pleasing.  They  follow  the  direct  line  of  the 
old  school  without  its  solidity  or  earnestness,  but  with  a pleasing 
quality  of  their  own  that  puts  them  in  the  same  category  as  the 
works  of  Isenbrant  and  the  best  of  the  successors  of  Gerard  David. 
The  momentum  of  the  old  school  was  still  strong  enough  to  carry 
Joos  van  Cleve  along  to  the  end  of  his  days. 

The  Antwerp  painter  who  died  mad  and  so  acquired  among 
his  contemporaries  the  Flemish  nickname  Zotten  van  Cleve,  or 
Sotte  Cleve  for  short,  has  given  more  than  enough  trouble  to  students 
of  the  history  of  art.  His  Christian  name  was  forgotten  in  his 
nickname.  It  was  dimly  remembered  that  he  had  something  to 
do  with  Joos  van  Cleve,  so  he  came  to  be  called  Joos  van  Cleve 
the  younger.  Presently  he  was  confused  with  the  elder  Joos, 
and  the  two  were  fused  into  one — in  fact,  it  was  all  chaos.  Lamp- 
sonius,  indeed,  was  clear  enough  that  there  were  two  different 
artists,  father  and  son  ; but  his  five  lines  of  verse  seem  to  imply 
that  it  was  the  father  who  went  mad.  Van  Mander  did  not  help 
to  clear  up  matters,  though  now  that  we  know  the  facts  we  can 
see  that  he  was  not  far  out.  He  was  aware  that  there  was  a Joos 
van  Cleve  who  became  master  at  Antwerp  in  1511  and  painted 
Virgins  surrounded  by  angels,  but  he  did  not  know  what  was  his 
relation  to  Sotte  Cleve,  and,  misled  by  Lampsonius,  attributed 
the  latter’s  misfortune  to  the  former.  He  related  that  Joos 
had  a son  who  was  a famous  painter,  but  thought  his  name  was 
Joos  also.  Finally  he  knew  that  Joos  had  a son  named  Cornells, 
but  not  that  he  was  an  artist.  We  need  not  pursue  the  confusion 
further.  The  facts  as  set  forth  in  the  Burlington  Magazine^  by 
Mr.  F.  J.  van  den  Branden,  the  learned  archivist  of  Antwerp, 
are  as  follows. 

Sotte  Cleve  was  the  same  as  Cornells  van  der  Beke  van  Cleve, 

1 January  1915. 


28 


414  JAN  JOEST,  BARTHEL  BRUYN,  AND  THE  VAN  CLEVES 


eldest  son  of  Joos  van  Cleve.  There  was  no  Joos  van  Cleve  the 
younger.  The  father  was  Joos,  the  son  Cornells.  Cornells  was 
born  In  May  1520,  and  must  have  been  the  pupil  of  his  father, 
who  died  when  the  youth  was  20  years  of  age,  having  made  his 
will  on  his  deathbed  In  November  1540.  The  earliest  known 
picture  by  Cornells  Is  a man’s  portrait  dated  1543,  which  was 
purchased  for  Antwerp  Museum  just  before  the  War.  Mr.  van 
den  Branden  describes  It  as  “a  really  finely  drawn  and  delicately 
finished  portrait  of  a man,  well  lit  and  of  beautiful  colour.  In  fact 
a production  which  deserves  to  rank  as  a masterpiece.”  The  present 
writer  has  had  no  opportunity  of  seeing  it.  Its  pendant  is  in 
Berlin  Museum. 

Cornells  was  above  everything  a portrait- painter,  and  as  such 
he  prospered.  Before  long  he  was  well  enough  off  to  buy  two  houses 
in  the  Koningstraat.  He  had,  doubtless,  heard  of  his  father’s 
visit  to  England  in  the  time  of  Henry  VIII.  The  idea  came  to 
him  to  try  his  own  fortune  there  in  1554  when  Philip  went  over  to 
marry  Mary.  An  artist  from  the  Spanish  Netherlands  might 
expect  some  patronage,  and  Cornells  had  a friend  at  Court,  Antony 
Mor,  to  put  him  forward.  He  hoped  to  be  appointed  court-painter 
in  England,  and  it  is  a pity  he  was  not.  Accordingly  he  sold  one 
of  his  houses,  left  his  wife  and  daughter  behind,  and  sailed  away 
full  of  hope.  Disappointment  awaited  him.  Just  then,  as  ill 
luck  would  have  it,  a consignment  of  pictures  by  Titian  and  others 
arrived  in  England,  and  Philip  would  look  at  nothing  else.  The 
disappointed  artist  blamed  and  abused  Mor  and  went  off  his  head, 
having  apparently  always  been  ill-balanced  ; he  no  doubt  said 
and  did  many  unwise  things  in  his  folly.  “ During  three  years,” 
relates  our  authority,  “ he  was  kept  in  London  in  the  hope  of 
sending  him  back  to  his  country  cured.”  One  wonders  whose 
interest  it  was  to  keep  him  if  he  had  formed  no  connexions  and 
done  no  work.  “ Eventually  he  was  sent  back  to  Antwerp  in 
1560,  where  his  stepmother,  Joos’  second  wife,  took  charge  of 
him.”  He  never  recovered.  His  savings  were  dissipated  and  he 
fell  into  poverty.  In  1564  the  authorities  appointed  his  daughter’s 
husband  to  be  his  guardian.  He  died  three  years  later  in  1567. 
It  is  to  be  hoped  that  Mr.  van  den  Branden  will  be  able  to  publish 
the  documents  on  which  his  results  are  based. 


SOTTE  CLEVE 


415 


The  following  portraits  are  attributed  to  Sotte  Cleve  with 
some  confidence  : 

Antwerp  : Portrait  of  a man,  dated  1543. 

Berlin  (No.  633b)  : Portrait  of  a woman,  dated  1543,  from 
Lord  Grimthorpe’s  Collection. 

Althorp  : Portrait  of  himself. 

Windsor  : Portraits  of  himself  and  his  wife. 

Berlin  (No.  633a)  : Portrait  of  a young  man,  from  the  Blenheim 
Palace  Collection. 

Other  portraits  that  approximate  to  his  style,  but  are  too  much 
damaged  or  repainted  for  secure  judgment  are  : 

Christ  Church,  Oxford  : Two  portraits  of  men  (Nos.  315,  316). 

Lord  Normanton’s  Collection  : Portrait  of  a woman. 

Hulin,  in  the  Ghent  Museum  Catalogue,  also  mentions  the 
record  of  a picture  in  an  English  inventory  of  1590  as  by  Cornelius 
Vancleave  of  Antwerp,  which  proves  that  at  that  date  the  painter 
was  remembered  in  England  under  his  true  name. 

It  is  said  that  Sotte  Cleve’ s portraits  show  the  derivation  of 
his  style  from  his  father.  The  connexion  between  them  is  not 
very  close.  The  artistic  parent  of  Cornelis  was  a greater  than 
Joos.  He  went  back  to  the  fountain-head,  to  Quentin  Massys. 
It  was  from  him  that  the  active  hands  were  derived  which  critics  too 
readily  seized  on  as  the  mark  of  Cornelis,  so  that  for  a while  every 
portrait  with  gesticulating  fingers,  especially  if  they  were  fore- 
shortened, was  liable  to  be  attributed  to  him.  Thus  he  was  called 
the  painter  of  the  Man  with  the  fine  Hand  at  Munich  (No.  660), 
which  is  not  a Netherlands  picture  at  all,  and  of  the  Havemeyer 
Carondelet,  which  must  have  been  painted  when  Cornelis  was 
about  15  years  old.  Whether  I am  right  or  not  in  attributing 
that  picture  to  Quentin,  it  is,  at  all  events,  fairly  evident  that 
Sotte  Cleve  studied  it  and  that  it  lingered  in  his  memory  when  he 
was  painting  his  own  portrait  now  at  Windsor. 

His  earliest  existing  pictures  are  the  portraits  of  a man  and 
wife,  dated  1543.  They  place  us  at  the  point  of  view  of  a new 
generation.  If  the  method  of  painting  is  that  of  preceding  genera- 
tions of  Netherlands  artists — ^the  well-proved  method  which  had 


416  JAN  JOEST,  BARTHEL  BRUYN,  AND  THE  VAN  CLEVES 


come  down  from  the  Van  Eycks — if  the  colours  are  smoothly 
wrought  together  and  surfaces  delicately  modelled,  as  by  the  son 
of  Joos  they  well  might  be,  the  outlook  upon  men  is  fresh.  They 
appear  before  us  in  the  simple  importance  of  their  active  humanity 
which  Quentin  had  first  expressed.  The  composition  of  the  man’s 
figure  will  recur  in  later  works  by  Mor,  who  was  the  coeval  of 
Cornells,  having  been  born  about  1519.  The  two  artists  can  hardly 
have  met  till  both  were  formed,  for  Mor  had  been  Scorel’s  pupil 
away  off  in  Holland.  If  there  was  any  borrowing  it  was  Cornells 
who  was  the  lender.  One  gets  the  impression  that  he  would  have 
been  too  proud  to  take  a hint  from  anyone  less  highly  placed  than 
the  departed  Quentin.  The  sitter  was  probably  some  well-to-do 
Antwerp  merchant,  and  we  may  be  sure  that  the  Oriental  rug  was 
not  introduced  as  a table-cloth  without  purpose,  while  the  classical 
column  behind  manifests  the  artist’s  breach  with  mediaevalism. 

The  Althorp  portrait  is  of  the  painter  himself.  ‘ The  eyebrows 
prove  it.  In  the  present  condition  of  the  panel  the  hands  are 
only  partly  shown,  one  of  them  pointing  with  the  index  finger. 
The  picture  marks  a considerable  advance  on  the  portraits  of  1543. 
With  all  its  apparent  simplicity  it  is  a subtle  composition.  It 
may  have  been  painted  about  1545  or  a little  later.  Fifteenth 
century  traditions  still  linger  in  it,  but  like  a fading  echo.  The 
characteristic  modelling  of  the  brow  will  be  noted.  It  is  the  upper 
part  of  the  head  that  attracts  attention.  The  mouth  is  sensitive, 
but  lacks  force.  This  man’s  emotions  might  dominate  his  will. 
The  insistence  on  the  vertical  line  at  the  back  of  the  neck  and 
its  sharp  angle  with  the  almost  straight  shoulder  line  is  a domi- 
nating note  of  a striking  linear  scheme,  a firm  geometrical  frame 
by  which  the  subtly  modelled  surfaces  are  held  together. 

The  self-portrait  at  Windsor,  compared  with  that  at  Althorp, 
marks  a development  in  the  painter’s  art  and  no  less  notable 
physical  changes.  The  personality  within  the  image  before  us  is 
more  clearly  defined,  not  by  the  painter’s  increased  skill  alone, 
but  by  the  stronger  imprint  which  character  has  stamped  upon 

' Another  version  of  this  was  in  the  Rothan  sale  (1890).  The  left  hand  does  not 
appear  in  that,  but  it  may  have  been  painted  out.  The  lack  of  it  upsets  the  balance 
of  the  composition.  The  picture  was  attributed  to  Sebastiano  del  Piombo  ! This  version 
suggests  that  a strip  has  been  cut  off  the  bottom  of  the  Althorp  picture,  which  has  an 
abbreviated  look. 


SOTTE  CLEVE 


417 


form  and  features.  We  must  date  the  picture  about  1554,  not 
later,  seeing  that  it  is  the  pendant  to  the  portrait  of  his  wife,  who 
remained  behind  in  Antwerp  when  he  went  to  England.  Here 
he  has  grown  suspicious  and  discontented.  It  is  an  agitated  ex- 
pression which  the  gesticulating  fingers  enforce.  He  seems  to  be 
arguing  or  protesting.  He  has  expanded  in  volume  both  physically 
and  mentally.  He  has  passed  through  passionate  experiences.  He 
is  a strongly  marked  individual,  and  a great  contrast  to  his  patient, 
restrained,  dutiful,  but  intelligent  and  understanding  wife,  whose 
life  has  evidently  not  been  easy.  While  his  fingers  nervously 
gesticulate,  her  reposeful  hands  hold  her  beads. 

Though  it  is  now  agreed  that  neither  the  Havemeyer  Carondelet 
nor  the  Munich  Man  with  the  fine  Hand  (No.  660)  can  have  been 
painted  by  Sotte  Cleve,  it  is  probable  that  the  Windsor  portrait 
is  not  independent  of  them,  nor  one  of  them  of  the  other.  In 
point  of  time  the  Carondelet  comes  first,  the  Munich  picture  second, 
and  the  Sotte  Cleve  third.  Our  painter  may  have  known  the  first, 
and  may  have  seen  the  second  and  taken  from  it  a suggestion 
for  the  design  of  his  own  hands.  At  this  early  date  such  a gesture 
was  a novelty.  Like  novelties  are  not  independently  invented 
by  different  artists  of  connected  schools  and  of  about  the  same 
period.  The  trouble  with  the  Munich  picture  is  that  Holbein 
experts  assert  it  to  be  Netherlandish,  while  Flemish  experts  insist 
that  it  is  German  and  would  like  to  ascribe  it  to  Holbein.  The 
picture,  moreover,  is  not  in  good  condition.  A possible  solution 
is  that  it  was  painted  by  an  artist  of  the  school  of  Holbein  who  had 
seen  the  Carondelet.  If  the  work  was  done  in  Antwerp  it  might 
have  come  under  the  eyes  of  Cornelis.  Probably  our  artist  carried 
with  him  to  England  as  examples  of  his  handiwork  the  two  Windsor 
pictures  and  the  Althorp  portrait.  He  might  well  regard  them 
with  pride,  for  Holbein  alone  among  Northern  artists  had  equalled 
them  since  Quentin  Massys  died.  They  uphold  Van  Mander’s 
statement  that  Sotte  Cleve  was  the  best  colourist  of  his  time  and 
school.  As  ill-luck  would  have  it,  his  arrival  in  England  was  simul- 
taneous with  the  receipt  by  Philip  of  the  aforesaid  consignment  of 
pictures  by  Titian  and  others — presumably  Italians — and  Philip 
had  eyes  for  nothing  else.  Mor  may  have  done  the  best  he  could 
for  his  friend  ; he  accomplished  nothing,  and  Cornelis  went  off  his 


418  JAN  JOEST,  BARTHEL  BRUYN,  AND  THE  VAN  CLEVES 


head,  as  already  related.  It  is  not  to  be  concluded  that  he  sold 
no  pictures  and  did  no  work  at  all  in  England  because  he  was  not 
appointed  court-painter.  A late  catalogue  states  that  the  Windsor 
portraits  were  purchased  by  Charles  I,  but  this  is  probably  an 
error,  and  their  re-purchase  by  Charles  II  after  the  Restoration 
is  probably  referred  to.  They  may  have  been  presented  to  Queen 
Mary  by  the  painter. 

The  portrait  of  a young  man  at  Berlin  is  Sotte  Cleve’s  most 
attractive  picture.  It  is  an  extraordinarily  subtle  rendering  of 
a highly  intelligent  and  interesting  youth,  perhaps  not  an  English- 
man. That  Rubens  should  have  made  the  copy  of  it  which  now 
hangs  in  the  Munich  Gallery  (No.  786)  shows  how  highly  he  esteemed 
it.  It  is  said  to  have  belonged  to  him.  In  date  it  may  not  be  much 
later  than  the  Althorp  picture,  but  it  is  painted  on  paper,  like 
Quentin’s  Head  of  an  Old  Man,  and  the  reason  may  have  been 
in  both  cases  the  same  —the  absence  of  the  artist  from  his  home 
and  lack  of  the  required  panel  to  paint  on.  Cornelis  overcame  the 
intractable  surface  with  ease.  No  picture  of  his  is  more  delicately 
modelled.  The  sitter  must  have  interested  him  : he  rendered  with 
complete  sympathy  and  understanding  the  lazily  observant  eyes 
and  the  little  twist  of  the  eyebrow.  A dark  hat  and  cloak  set  off 
and  enframe  the  brightly  lit  countenance,  which  shines  out  upon  us 
with  a singular  radiance.  It  is  a picture  for  a house  rather  than 
a gallery,  one  to  be  lived  with,  not  glanced  at  in  passing. 

Had  the  English  Court  been  better  advised,  the  services  of  Cor- 
nelis van  Cleve  would  have  been  secured  and  a gallery  of  the  notables 
of  the  reign  of  Mary  and  the  early  years  of  Elizabeth,  worthy  to 
be  compared  with  Holbein’s  priceless  memorials  of  the  statesmen 
who  surrounded  Henry  VIII,  would  have  been  our  inheritanee. 
Moreover,  the  standard  he  would  have  set  could  not  have  been 
without  effect  upon  public  taste.  Imitators  and  followers  would 
have  arisen,  and  the  portraits  of  the  next  generation  would  not  have 
been  the  dull  series  we  have  to  put  up  with.  The  gods  decreed 
otherwise,  and  history  has  to  record  one  more  failure  to  profit  by 
a great  opportunity. 


CHAPTER  XXVIII 


BERNARD  VAN  ORLEY 

Of  Bernard  van  Orley,  the  Court  Painter  of  Brussels,  it  is  not  easy 
for  me  to  write  with  discrimination,  his  large  pictures  being  of  a 
kind  unsympathetic  to  me.  The  historian  of  art  must  continually 
remind  himself  that  the  taste  of  an  individual  cannot  be  a criterion 
of  all  the  kinds  of  art  of  the  past.  Artists  paint  for  the  people  of 
their  day  according  to  the  ideals  of  their  day.  It  is  their  business 
to  express  those  ideals  in  the  forms  which  appeal  to  the  taste  of 
their  contemporaries.  If  the  cultured  folk  of  a society  at  any 
given  time  have  admired  the  work  of  an  artist,  that  is  proof  that 
it  was  good  of  its  kind,  however  unpopular  the  kind  may  afterward 
become.  We  cannot  deny  Van  Orley’s  gifts.  His  ability  is  obvious. 
“ We  do  not  like  you.  Dr.  Fell,”  is  the  attitude  of  most  of  us, 
but  we  also  take  the  liberty  to  dislike  other  meritorious  persons 
without  thereby  assuming  the  right  to  condemn  them. 

Van  Orley’s  unattractive  qualities,  and  the  fact  that  his  pleasing 
pictures  were  ascribed  to  Mabuse  and  others,  deprived  him  of  the 
careful  attention  of  many  able  students,  who  preferred  to  devote 
their  labours  elsewhere.  It  was  thus  left  to  the  conscientious 
Friedlander  to  be  the  first  critic  in  our  own  day  who  has  taken  the 
master  in  hand,  examined  his  work  with  care,  pruned  away 
from  it  a mass  of  false  accretion,  and  given  back  a charming  group 
to  the  list  of  his  genuine  works.  The  results,  as  published  in  four 
contributions  to  the  Annual  of  the  Prussian  Museums  for  1908-9, 
are  the  main  authority  on  which  the  following  remarks  are  based. 

Bernard  van  Orley  was  born  at  Brussels,  the  son  of  one  Valentin, 
a painter,  who  married  in  1490.  The  date  of  Bernard’s  birth  is 
guessed  at  about  1492-5,  his  elder  brother  having  been  born  in 
1491.  Bernard’s  portrait,  painted  by  Diirer  in  1521,  helps  toward 
this  estimate.  In  1512  Valentin  moved  to  Antwerp  and  joined 

419 


420 


BERNARD  VAN  ORLEY 


the  guild  there,  but  by  that  date  Bernard  had  doubtless  been 
educated,  partly  or  wholly  by  his  father,  and  it  seems  probable 
that  he  stayed  behind  in  Brussels.  About  then  our  artist  began 
to  work  on  his  own  account,  and  it  is  assumed  that  his  art  was 
entirely  a Brussels  product,  formed  in  that  city  at  the  time  when 
Colin  de  Coter  was  the  leading  painter  there.  His  likeness  intro- 
duces us  to  a singularly  winning,  intelligent,  and  bright  personality. 
It  is  easy  to  conclude  that  his  success  as  a court-painter  was  due 
as  much  to  his  personal  charm  as  to  his  artistic  abilities.  In  1515 
he  was  already  employed  by  the  Regent  Margaret  of  Austria, 
and  three  years  later  he  was  formally  appointed  court- painter.  He 
died  in  1540  after  a prosperous  and  active  but  rather  short  career. 

The  earliest  work  assigned  to  him  is  the  altar-piece  of  SS.  Thomas 
and  Matthias,  whereof  the  centre-piece  is  at  Vienna  (No.  765) 
and  the  wings  at  Brussels  (No.  337).  If  this  is  correctly  dated  to 
1512  it  was  a precocious  work.  It  is  constructed  on  the  Brussels 
plan.  When  the  wings  are  open  the  whole  displays  four  subjects 
treated  on  an  equal  scale,  the  two  on  the  central  panel  being  divided,^ 
not  by  a moulding  (as  was  the  usual  type),  but  by  a painted  column 
elaborately  decorated.  These  pictures  display  no  close  connexion 
with  the  art  of  Colin  or  any  other  identified  Brussels  painter. 
The  obvious  link  is  with  Antwerp  and  the  Antwerp  Mannerists, 
though  their  later  extravagance  of  movement  and  superfluity  of 
incident  is  here  wanting.  The  main  events  happen  under  ill- 
proportioned  architectural  canopies  of  a bastard  Italian  character. 
The  introduction  of  a greyhound  and  the  type  of  some  of  the  heads 
remind  us  a little  of  the  pictures  attributed  to  Jan  de  Beer.  Pre- 
judice is  compelled  to  admit  some  obvious  merits  in  the  picture. 
The  heads  are  well  painted.  Their  creator  has  mentally  beheld 
the  figures  thus  related  to  one  another,  not  mechanically  fitted 
them  together.  Expressions,  gestures,  and  positions  match. 
Costumes  are  not  eccentric.  One  wonders  why  the  whole  is  not 
more  pleasing.  The  landscape  is  of  the  good  old  style,  and  might 
have  been  designed  by  the  elder  Bouts  as  far  as  its  forms  are 
concerned. 

Other  paintings  attributed  to  this  period  (1512-15)  are  the  St. 
Norbert  at  Munich  (No.  157),  a Madonna  with  St.  Anne  (Coll.  Lafora, 
Madrid),  a Magi  (Coll.  J.  G.  Johnson,  No.  400),  and  an  Abraham’s 


PLATE  XXII 


3.  SOTTECLKVE.  ANTWERP  GALLERY.— p.  115.  4.  B.  VAN  ORLEY.  COLL.  EMDEN.—p.  121. 


1.  JOOS  VAN  CLEYE.  MESSRS.  COLNAGHI. 
p.  40(t. 


2.  JOOS  VAN  CLEVE.  \YORCESTER,  MASS, 
p.  411. 


[To  lace  page  420. 


EARLY  WORKS 


421 


Sacrifice  at  Schwerin  (No.  757).  The  last-mentioned  is  an  attractive 
picture  in  which  the  several  incidents  are  placed  along  a road  that 
winds  up  a hill.  The  treatment  of  rocks  and  vegetation  is  delicate, 
and  keeps  close  to  nature.  So  does  the  scrap  of  view  to  one  side. 
Abraham,  standing  in  the  foreground  with  back  turned  and  arm 
outstretched,  is  an  admirable  figure  whose  like  is  not  easy  to  find 
north  of  the  Alps,  a contrast  in  firm  simple  pose,  well-proportioned 
limbs,  and  graceful  gesture,  to  his  coarse-footed,  underbred-looking 
son,  with  an  old  man’s  head  on  his  young  shoulders,  who  sits  near 
by  drinking  a dish  of  water.  If  the  artist  invented  Isaac,  he  must 
surely  have  stolen  Abraham. 

Toward  the  end  of  this  period  is  placed  a charming  Virgin 
with  angels  which  was  in  the  Emden  Collection  (No.  89)  at  Hamburg. 
They  are  seated  by  a fountain  on  a flowery  terrace  close  to  the 
fa9ade  of  a fine  house,  and  there  are  peacocks  on  the  low  wall 
behind  them  and  a view  away  to  the  far-off  spire  of  a village  church. 
The  Mother  is  sweetly  and  affectionately  embracing  her  baby 
with  an  emotion  not  so  well  expressed  in  any  other  Northern 
picture  of  the  day.  The  architecture  of  the  house  is  absurd, 
and  the  fountain  a ragged  post  of  meaningless  tracery,  but  the 
figures  are  delightful  and  so  is  the  picture  as  a whole.  A Virgin 
and  Child  with  angels  at  Worcester,  Mass.,  may  be  grouped  with 
this  picture. 

A couple  of  Madonnas  at  Madrid  which  may  be  dated  a year 
or  two  later  possess  similar  elements  of  charm.  In  one,  the  Virgin 
sits  on  a marble  platform  before  an  elaborately  sculptured  niche, 
and  the  whole  is  so  much  under  the  influence  of  Mabuse  that  the 
picture  was  long  attributed  to  him.  In  the  other,  which  is  disguised 
by  repaints,  the  background  is  a more  extensive  landscape  than 
usual  with  Bernard,  delightfully  studied  from  nature  and  free 
from  all  trace  of  Patinir  design.  For  these  Madonnas  the  painter 
has  sought  models  possessing  physical  beauty  and  has  not  sought 
in  vain.  Few  prettier  Virgins  emanated  from  a Netherland  work- 
shop. Small  wonder,  then,  that  Van  Orley’s  Madonnas  were  popular 
or  that  he  was  called  upon  to  supply  many  about  this  date.  Thus 
there  is  one  at  Glasgow,  again  in  the  open  air  by  a less  fussy  fountain, 
and  a second  version  of  it  in  the  Ambrosiana  (rescued  from  Belle- 
gambe  by  Friedlander).  Others  are  or  were  in  the  Traumann 


422 


BERNARD  VAN  ORLEY 


and  Schloss  Collections,  and  one  is  in  the  National  Gallery  (No.  714). 
If  Orley  were  represented  only  by  such  pretty  pictures  as  these 
his  reputation  would  be  happier. 

But  in  the  same  period  he  was  also  painting  altar-pieces  and 
religious  works,  such  as  one  for  Fumes,  whereof  part  of  a wing 
remains  at  Turin  (No.  318) ; others  at  Cassel  and  Brussels.^  There 
are  versions  of  the  Virgin’s  Seven  Sorrows  in  Antwerp  and  Rome 
(Colonna  Gall.),  the  former  deeply  suffering,  for  Orley  was  able 
to  depict  grief,  the  latter  merely  posed  and  possibly  not  from 
his  own  hand.  The  seven  incidents  are  in  as  many  separate 
medallions  swimming  in  clouds.  A corresponding  Seven  Joys 
at  Rome  repeats  for  the  central  figures  the  old  design  often  above 
referred  to  as  the  Madonna  with  a Flower.  These  and  other 
religious  pictures  of  the  period  may  once  have  been  efficient  aids 
to  devotion  ; they  convey  little  joy  to  a modern  eye. 

A later  group  of  Madonnas  dating  from  about  1520  to  1522 
were  painted  under  rather  a strong  Mabuse  influence.  One  is 
half  of  a diptych  to  accompany  a half-length  portrait  of  Regent 
Margaret.  It  survives  alone  in  the  Whed  Collection,  the  other 
panel  only  in  a copy.  A half-length  which  was  in  the  Hoogendijk 
sale  comes  very  near  indeed  to  such  a Mabuse  as  that  in  the 
Kaufmann  Collection,  which  may  have  been  painted  about  three 
years  earlier.  The  Louvre  Holy  Family  of  1521  also  strongly 
recalls  Mabuse,  and  suggests  that  Orley  may  have  seen  the  diptych 
of  which  the  National  Gallery  portrait  formed  half.  Orley’ s 
architecture  here  perhaps  implies  that  his  panel  also  was  half  of  a 
diptych.  The  Madonna  in  the  Dansette  Collection,  known  to  me 
only  by  a bad  photograph,  appears  to  be  connected  with  Mabuse’s 
Virgin  with  the  long  white  veil,  but  when  we  come  to  the  Pablo 
Bosch  Holy  Family  dated  1522,  now  in  the  Prado,  we  find  that  the 
Mabuse  influence  has  given  place  to  that  of  Raphael.  About  1516 
to  1522  was  thus  the  duration  of  Orley’s  Mabuse  period. 

The  head  of  St.  Joseph  in  this  Holy  Family  betrays  the  painter’s 
approximation  to  another  artist.  When  Diirer  was  in  Brussels 
in  the  last  days  of  August  1520  he  wrote  in  his  diary  how  Master 
Bernard  van  Orley  invited  him  to  a dinner  for  which  ten  florins 

1 Brussels  Hospital,  dated  1520.  It  was  No.  163  in  the  Bruges  Exhibition  of  1902. 
It  is  a polyp ty eh  and  includes  the  work  of  assistants. 


MEETING  WITH  DURER 


423 


would  hardly  pay,'  and  how  he  had  distinguished  officials  to 
meet  him  ; he  gave  Bernard  an  Engraved  Passion,  and  Bernard 
gave  him  a black  Spanish  bag  worth  three  florins.  Diirer  also  drew 
Bernard’s  likeness  in  charcoal  and,  either  from  that  drawing  or 
from  life,  when  he  was  at  Brussels  again  in  the  following  July, 
painted  the  admirable  portrait  of  his  host  now  a treasure  in  the 
Dresden  Gallery  (No.  1871).  All  this  bespeaks  a mutual  attrac- 
tion. When  the  Madrid  picture  was  successfully  cleaned  and  had 
regained  much  of  its  ancient  brilliancy,  it  occurred  to  Dr.  Tormo  ^ 
that  the  head  of  St.  Joseph  closely  resembled  the  head  of  the  old 
man  drawn  at  Antwerp  by  Diirer  on  a sheet  of  paper,  now  in  the 
Albertina.  Comparing  this  study  with  a bad  photograph  of  the 
picture  a resemblance  is  visible,  but  not  amounting  to  identity. 
The  positions  of  the  heads  are  different.  The  Diireresque  quality 
of  the  Orley  head  is,  however,  obvious  enough,  but  Dr.  Tormo’s 
contention  that  Diirer  actually  painted  it  in  on  his  friend’s  panel 
can  only  be  established  or  refuted  in  presence  of  the  picture. 

There  is  in  the  British  Museum  a good  drawing  by  Van  Orley 
of  Lazarus  at  the  Rich  Man’s  Feast.  The  design  of  the  great 
baldacchino  behind  the  table  links  it  to  the  earliest  picture  we 
mentioned,  the  Vienna  Thomas  and  Matthias.  As  that  reminded 
us  of  Jan  de  Beer,  so  also  does  this  by  the  fashion  of  a woman’s 
sleeve,  here  and  in  one  of  de  Beer’s  roundels  at  Basle.  The  drawing 
is  well  and  spaciously  composed,  and  all  the  attitudes  are  quiet 
and  simple.  It  may  date  from  a few  years  earlier  than  the  time 
at  which  we  have  arrived.  Van  Orley  used  or  re-used  it  for  one 
of  the  wing  panels  of  the  Job  altar-piece,  painted  in  1521,  which  is 
now  in  the  Brussels  Gallery.  Here  the  influence  of  Mabuse  is 
apparent,  but  so  is  that  of  Raphael,  for  the  figure  on  the  right 
wing  is  copied  out  of  the  Heliodorus  fresco,  a transfer  which  by  no 
means  forces  us  to  send  our  painter  journeying  to  Rome  and  back. 
Raphael’s  designs  were  spread  abroad  in  all  kinds  of  ways,  and 
Orley  was  no  doubt  familiar  with  his  tapestry  cartoons,  which 
were  actually  in  Brussels  for  many  years.  The  Job  altar-piece, 
as  Friedlander  points  out,  marks  a change  in  our  painter’s  ideals. 

' A ^vTiter  reminds  us  that  ten  florins  would  then  buy  three  fat  oxen.  It  seems 
the  equivalent  of  a lot  of  food. 

^ Boll,  de,  la  Soc.  Espahola  de  Excursiones,  1916,  pt.  i. 


424 


BERNARD  VAN  ORLEY 


He  now  began  to  strive  after  sensationalism.  The  prominent 
fashion  in  which  he  signed  this  picture  is  proof  of  the  pride  he  took 
in  his  achievement.  In  the  Cook  Collection  is  a fragment  of  a 
large  picture  which  contained  a Crucifixion.  It  likewise  is  of 
sensational  character,  but  the  heads,  notably  that  of  St.  John, 
are  finely  and  expressively  painted.  Similarly  remarkable  heads, 
still  influenced  % Mabuse,  distinguish  the  Hanneton  Family 
altar-piece  at  Brussels ; clearly  the  painter  had  in  mind  an  earlier 
treatment  of  the  same  subject,  the  Mourning  over  the  Dead  Christ, 
which,  like  this,  showed  only  the  heads  and  arms  of  figures  drawn 
on  a relatively  large  scale,  and  closely  packed  together  against  a 
spotted  gold  background.  Such  backgrounds  appear  to  have 
been  popular  in  Brusssels.  Orley’s  later  pictures — ^the  Last  Judg- 
ment of  1525  at  Antwerp,  the  Crucifixion  at  Rotterdam,  or  that 
in  Notre  Dame  at  Bruges,  which  he  left  unfinished — ^present  no 
important  new  developments.  The  last-mentioned  is  believed  to 
have  been  begun  as  intended  altar-piece  for  Margaret  of  Austria’s 
mortuary  church  of  Brou  at  Bourg-en-Bresse  (Ain),  but  she  died 
in  1530,  before  the  painting  had  been  finished,  and  it  was  put  on 
one  side,  and  only  completed  after  the  painter’s  death  by  Marc 
Geeraerts. 

As  a portrait  artist  Van  Orley,  though  not  first-rate,  was  not 
without  merit.  We  have  no  portraits  by  him  that  can  be  dated 
before  1515,  the  year  in  which  he  became  attached  to  the  Court. 
Perhaps  his  first  official  order  was  to  paint  a picture  of  the  six 
children  of  Philip  the  Fair  for  a present  to  the  King  of  Denmark, 
and  it  was  repeated  in  the  following  year.  In  the  Fetis  sale 
(No.  47)  was  a diptych  by  a second-rate  painter  containing  the 
portraits  of  these  same  children,  all  six  in  a row,  the  two  boys  on 
one  half,  the  girls  on  the  other,  with  their  names  and  birth-dates 
inscribed.  That  cannot  have  been  painted  after  1508  or  1509  at 
latest. . It  serves  to  show  the  kind  of  picture  Orley  was  commis- 
sioned to  repeat.  The  Louvre  and  Naples  Galleries  possess  copies 
of  a portrait  of  Charles  V in  early  youth,  of  which  other  examples 
and  variants  are  known.^  As  he  wears  the  Jewel  of  the  Fleece  on 
a collar  and  not  on  a ribbon,  we  may  guess  that  the  original  was 

1 Friedlander  thinks  there  may  have  been  a second  original  behind  the  versions  in 
Bruges  Cathedral,  the  Borghese  Gallery  (No.  281),  and  a Paris  collection. 


HIS  PORTRAITS 


425 


painted  in  1515  or  early  in  1516.  The  fashion  of  the  hat,  the 
medallion  on  the  brim,  and  other  accessories  agree  with  the 
Macquoid  copy  of  the  Mabuse  portrait  miscalled  Philip  of  Burgundy, 
which  we  have  already  dated  to  1516.  It  was  the  time  when  Orley 
was  coming  under  the  influence  of  Mabuse,  having  probably  been 
in  personal  contact  with  him  on  the  occasion  of  one  of  his  sum- 
monses to  work  at  court.  There  is  so  much  in  common  between 
the  two  paintings  that  one  is  almost  tempted  to  ask  whether  an 
Orley  original  is  not  behind  each  of  them.  The  far  more  vivid 
and  imaginative  rendering  of  the  aspect  of  Charles  V which  is  at 
Budapest  is  ascribed  by  Friedlander  to  Orley,  but  I can  neither 
agree  with  him  as  to  the  date  he  assigns  to  it  nor  in  the  ascription. 
I can  discover  no  appreciable  difference  of  age  between  the  youth 
in  the  Louvre  and  the  Budapest  pictures,  and  I do  not  believe  that 
the  prince  wore  the  same  hat  for  four  or  five  years,  as  Friedlander 
would  make  him.  All  Orley’s  authentic  portraits  depict  the  sitter 
in  a quite  ordinary  pose — ^head  upright,  usually  turned  in  three- 
quarters  to  right  or  left,  rarely  full-face  —in  fact,  the  old-fashioned 
convention  of  the  school.  If  Orley  had  once  composed  a portrait 
in  the  free  and  delightful  fashion  of  the  Budapest  picture  he  would 
not  have  returned  to  mechanical  poses  for  the  rest  of  his  days. 
There  is  another  artistic  personality  behind  the  Budapest  painting 
which  can  only  be  that  of  Mabuse,  whether  the  actual  painting 
of  the  existing  picture  be  by  his  hand  or  not. 

The  portrait  of  Margaret  of  Austria  in  the  Carvalho  Collection 
is  well-known.  It  is  a picture  depending  for  its  effect  upon  the 
colours,  and  especially  upon  the  dark-green  background  behind  the 
bluish-white  headdress  of  the  widow.  The  same  head  appeared 
on  a three-quarter  length  portrait  which  formed  half  of  the  diptych 
known  to  us  by  the  copy  in  the  Lescarts  Collection,  the  date  of 
which  is  approximately  1520.  We  have  no  lack  of  likenesses  of 
this  princess.  There  is  the  medal  of  1501  by  Jean  Marende  de 
Bourg,  the  sculptured  figures  at  Bourg-en-Bresse  by  Conrad  Meyt, 
as  well  as  a charming  little  box -wood  bust  of  her  by  the  same  artist 
at  Munich,  in  which  she  is  dressed  exactly  as  here,  with  the  omission 
of  the  veil  on  her  forehead.  The  sculptor  might  have  used  and 
perhaps  did  use  Van  Orley’s  picture  to  help  him,  for  patrons  appear 
to  have  been  bad  sitters  in  those  days.  Our  painter  also  introduced 


426 


BERNARD  VAN  ORLEY 


her  as  Charity  into  his  Crucifixion  picture  now  at  Rotterdam,  but 
that  was  painted  some  eight  years  later,  the  likeness  being  treated 
freely,  and  the  hard  Hapsburg  features  softened  and  enlivened. 

It  is  natural  to  compare  with  the  princess’s  portrait  one  of  a 
lady  which  is  in  the  Ufifizi,  with  her  husband  as  pendant  (Nos.  821, 
839).  They  show  how  closely  the  artist  adhered  to  a formula.  The 
attitude,  direction  of  the  eyes,  treatment  of  the  head-dress,  and 
entirely  reposeful  expression  are  in  both  the  same,  only  the  hand 
is  changed  and  made  to  hold  the  commonplace  glove ; but  the 
face  is  subtly  treated  and  the  coarse  features  endowed  with  a sweet 
expression. 

A signed  and  dated  picture,  authenticated  with  the  name  of 
the  sitter,  is  a godsend  which  the  Brussels  Gallery  (No.  334) 
preserves.  It  shows  us  Dr.  George  van  Zelle  as  he  appeared  when 
28  years  of  age  in  1519.  He  was  attached  to  the  Hospital  of 
St.  John  in  Brussels,  for  which  Orley  was  no  doubt  then  painting 
the  altar-piece,  delivered  in  1520.  A modern  eye  would  esti- 
mate his  age  at  nearer  40  than  the  stated  28.  They  aged 
quickly  in  those  days,  and  the  fact  has  to  be  remembered  when 
guessing  ages  from  portraits  of  this  school  and  period.  Here 
the  painter  has  introduced  an  unusual  number  of  accessories, 
stimulated,  perhaps,  by  what  Massys  was  doing  at  Antwerp,  but 
the  position  of  the  sitter  is  as  ordinary  as  ever.  His  hands  and 
his  possessions  are  more  in  evidence ; that  is  all.  It  is  not  a pro- 
found study  of  the  man,  but  may  have  been  a good  likeness. 
Approximately  contemporary  is  the  Brussels  portrait  of  an  Imperial 
Secretary  in  the  time  of  Maximilian.  Orley  would  not  thus  have 
disposed  him  if  he  had  not  been  acquainted  with  Quentin’s  epoch- 
making  Peter  Gillis  of  1517,  but  the  echo  of  that  master’s  powerful 
note  is  weak.  Here  the  hands  lie  feebly  and  betray  nothing  of  the 
sitter’s  mood.  The  expression  is  inert.  Surely  more  could  have 
been  made  of  this  probably  experienced  civil  servant.  There  is 
enough  visible  in  his  face  to  suggest  greater  force  and  capacity 
than  the  painter  has  availed  to  display. 

A few  years  later  (about  1525)  we  may  place  the  reconstituted 
diptych  of  the  much  portrayed  Carondelet,  whereof  the  Madonna 
half  is  in  the  Northbrook  Collection  and  the  portrait  at  Munich 
(No.  133).  A comparison  with  Mabuse’s  massive  and  refined 


WORK  FOR  CARONDELET 


427 


contemporary  presentment  of  the  same  statesman  and  prelate 
suffices  to  put  Van  Orley  definitely  on  a lower  plane.  Nor  can  his 
picture  rank  with  that  in  the  Havemeyer  (formerly  Duchatel) 
Collection,  which  was  wrongly  ascribed  to  Sotte  Cleve  and  is 
probably  by  Quentin.  Moreover,  these  two  are  not  independent 
of  one  another,  and  it  is  Orley’s  version  which  is  subordinate  to  the 
other.  The  Havemeyer  picture  is  by  far  the  more  forcible  and  vivid, 
an  obviously  direct  impression  of  the  man  himself  made  upon  an 
artist  of  genius.  The  other  is  a dim  reflection  of  it,  a line-for-line 
repetition  of  the  head  with  all  the  vigour  lost.  It  may  be  that 
Carondelet  ordered  the  diptych  mainly  for  the  sake  of  the  Madonna, 
which  is  one  of  Orley’s  best,  or  that  he  bought  the  Madonna  and 
commissioned  the  portrait  to  be  added  in  his  absence,  leaving  the 
Havemeyer  version  for  the  painter  to  follow.  In  any  case,  the 
portrait  is  a most  damning  picture  for  Orley’s  reputation.  Far 
superior  is  that  of  a man  with  a dated  paper  in  his  hand  at  Dresden 
(No.  811).  Unfortunately,  the  last  figure  of  the  date  is  not  certain, 
though  1522  seems  to  be  the  correct  reading.  There  is  more 
character  in  the  pose  of  the  heavy  head  and  the  expression  of  the 
massive  features  than  we  have  thus  far  found,  but  the  composition 
is  uninteresting  and  the  artist,  in  placing  the  hands,  seems  to 
have  been  mainly  concerned  to  get  them  out  of  the  way  of  the 
pattern  on  the  table-cloth. 

A miniature  at  Berlin  depicts  Henry  HI,  Count  of  Nassau, 
painted  on  or  after  his  marriage  in  1524.  He  is  said  to  have  been 
a patron  of  Van  Orley,  to  whom,  therefore,  the  work  was  tentatively 
ascribed.  The  miniature,  though  showing  the  Count  older  and 
with  slight  changes  of  costume,  is  obviously  dependent  upon 
a superior  portrait,  of  which  there  is  a version  at  Woerlitz.  This 
proceeds  from  the  entourage  of  Mabuse  and  may  be  a copy  of  an 
original  by  him.  It  has  nothing  to  do  with  Orley.  Whether 
Hulin  is  right  in  attributing  to  our  artist  the  half-length  picture  of 
a lady  in  the  character  of  the  Magdalen,  which  was  in  the  Cardon 
Collection,  must  be  regarded  as  uncertain.  It  was  called  a portrait 
of  Isabella  of  Austria  and  attributed  to  Mabuse  ; neither  attribution 
can  be  upheld.  Her  head  is  a hard  little  nut  carefully  rounded, 
and  she  has  dark  eyes,  pouting  lips,  and  accurately  dressed  hair, 
all  above  a stiff  little  neck,  but  her  great  puffed  and  pleated  sleeves. 


428 


BERNARD  VAN  ORLEY 


so  admirably  drawn  with  their  intricate  convolutions,  attract 
the  attention.  The  girl  is  subordinated  to  her  clothes.  The  paint- 
ing of  the  sleeves  is  what  reminds  us  of  Mabuse  ; if  Orley  was  the 
craftsman  he  must  have  done  the  work  in  the  days  when  he  was 
under  that  painter’s  influence. 

A bare  reference  to  Van  Orley’ s activity  as  designer  of  tapestries 
must  suffice.  An  excursion  into  the  domain  of  weaving  would 
carry  us  far  beyond  the  limits  assigned  to  the  present  study. 
Tapestry-designing  was  an  important  part,  perhaps  the  most 
important,  of  the  business  of  the  Brussels  School.  If  we  find  a 
relative  paucity  of  Brussels  paintings  of  our  period,  it  is  because  the 
men  who  should  have  made  them  were  otherwise  occupied.  Many 
of  Orley’ s designs  for  tapestries  and  tapestries  made  after  Orley’ s 
designs  still  exist.  The  designs  are  not  cartoons,  but  the  drawings 
from  which  the  cartoons  were  enlarged.  You  cannot  test  the 
quality  of  tapestry  by  a small  drawing  for  it.  The  drawing  may 
not  seem  particularly  attractive,  but  the  tapestry  may  justify  it 
by  the  splendour  of  its  decorative  effect.  Princes  of  those  days 
valued  their  tapestries  more  highly  than  their  pictures,  because  they 
cost  incomparably  more.  I have  seen  it  stated  that  Regent  Mar- 
garet paid  Orley  for  his  pictures  about  two  florins  per  square  foot, 
which  seems  inadequate.^  It  cost  at  the  rate  of  2,000  francs  to 
produce  a square  yard  of  tapestry  of  high  quality,  and  that  was 
a year’s  work  for  a skilled  weaver.  No  wonder  skilled  artists  were 
glad  to  be  employed  designing  such  works  and  were  well  paid  for 
so  doing.  Jan  Mostaert  is  said  to  have  been  Margaret’s  chief 
designer  till  Orley  succeeded  him,^  but  at  what  date  the  latter  was 
first  occupied  on  tapestry  cartoons  is  not  recorded.  Those  for 
the  hunts  of  Maximilian,  of  which  the  designs  and  the  finished 
works  themselves  are  preserved  in  the  Louvre,  were  certainly 
drawn  in  or  before  1525.  There  are  designs  dated  1524  at  Munich 
and  others  undated.  Both  designs  (in  the  Louvre)  and  tapestries 
(at  Naples)  of  the  series  glorifying  the  Victory  of  Pavia  likewise 
exist.  The  designs  date  from  about  1528.  Friedlander  gives  a 
list  of  fifteen  single  tapestries  or  sets  of  tapestry  made  after 

1 Diirer  received  thirty  florins  for  the  King  of  Denmark’s  portrait. 

2 On  what  ground  this  assertion  rests,  I know  not,  nor  whether  any  existing  tapestries 
display  Mostaert’s  style.  I know  of  none. 


HIS  TAPESTRIES 


429 


Vail  Orley  and  still  existing  in  whole  or  in  part.  An  early  example 
is  the  Pieta  woven  with  gold  and  silver  threads  which  was  in  the 
Duke  of  Alva’s  sale  (1877).  In  composition  it  agrees  with  the 
mid  panel  of  the  Hanneton  triptych.  Another  Pieta  which  was 
No.  163  in  the  Cernuschi  sale  (1900)  bears  a corresponding  relation 
to  part  of  the  Bruges  Crucifixion  above  referred  to.  For  us  in 
England  the  most  interesting  survivals  are  eight  of  an  original 
set  of  ten  tapestries  still  to  be  seen  at  Hampton  Court.  These 
are  late  works.  The  designing  of  decorative  work  of  this  kind 
seems  to  have  employed  most  of  Van  Orley’s  time  in  the  last 
fifteen  years  of  his  life.  He  was  better  thus  engaged  than  in 
painting  pictures.  There  is  an  exuberance  about  his  tapestries 
which  well  enough  suits  their  character  and  purpose ; if  they  are 
effective  even  now  we  may  be  sure  that  they  were  more  so  in  their 
first  brilliance.  One  can  imagine  such  pomp-loving  princes  as 
Henry  VIII  and  Francis  I finding  Van  Orley’s  tapestries  an  admir- 
able background  for  the  pageantry  of  their  courts. 

Tapestries  were  not  the  only  decorative  products  which 
Orley  was  called  upon  to  design.  Painted  glass  windows  for  the 
Church  of  St.  Gudule  in  Brussels  were  also  of  his  invention,  and 
Friedlander  would  likewise  credit  him  with  a fine  example  at 
Hoogstraeten.  There  is  in  the  Albertina  a beautiful  drawing, 
evidently  for  a glass  roundel,  depicting  Justice,  a figure  freely 
imitated  from  Marcantonio’s  engraving.  It  is  falsely  inscribed  as 
by  Mabuse.  Winkler  would  attribute  it  to  Orley,  and  he  may 
be  right.  In  that  case  it  is  one  of  his  most  graceful  and  attractive 
compositions.^ 

Van  Orley  seems  also  to  have  been  consulted  about  architectural 
projects.  He  was,  at  any  rate,  employed  to  make  architectural 
drawings.  Thus  his  was  the  hand  that  drew  out  the  design  of  the 
architect  Wyenhofen  for  the  chapel  of  the  Sacrament  in  St.  Gudule’s 
at  Brussels  that  it  might  be  displayed  to  the  Regent  Mary  of  Plun- 
gary  on  the  laying  of  the  foundation  stone.  There  exists  in  the 
Berlin  print-room  an  admirably  drawn  design  for  the  recumbent 
monument  of  a Princess  richly  decorated  with  sculptures  and 
arabesques.  Four  emblematic  figures  fill  the  niches  in  the  sarco- 
phagus and  sculptured  groups  of  Virtues  sit  at  the  angles,  but  the 

1 Reproduced  in  Archiv  /.  Kunstgesch.,  pi.  xix. 


29 


430 


BERNARD  VAN  ORLEY 


shields  held  by  putti  above  the  corniee  are  blank,  and  there  is 
nothing  to  show  whom  the  reeumbent  figure  is  intended  to  represent. 
It  is  an  excellent  drawing  of  a good  design,  but  there  is  no  reason  to 
suppose  that  Orley  was  the  designer.  He  probably  acted  as  skilled 
exponent  of  some  less  deft-handed  artist’s  idea.  When  Isabella 
of  Austria,  sister  of  Charles  V and  wife  of  King  Christian  of 
Denmark,  died  in  1526,  the  advice  of  Mabuse  was  asked  about  her 
monument.  Is  it  possible  that  this  design  may  have  been  made  on 
the  same  occasion  ? It  was  well  reproduced  in  the  Annual  of  the 
Prussian  Museums  for  1915  and  with  it  a curious  composition  for 
a triptych  in  which  people  appear  carrying  heavy  chains,  but  the 
meaning  of  the  principal  subjects  and  subsidiary  incidents  awaits 
explanation. 

I do  not  propose  to  delay  the  reader  over  Van  Orley’s  followers. 
They  were  unimportant  as  picture-makers,  and  their  work  is 
unattractive.  Bernard  was  neither  a great  artist  nor  a great 
teacher.  He  had  his  pupils,  of  course,  one  named  Bartholomew, 
probably  Coninxloo,  whom  he  lent  to  Diirer  to  grind  his  colours 
when  he  was  painting  the  King  of  Denmark’s  portrait.  The  lad 
was  a connexion  of  Bernard.  He  belonged  to  a large  Brussels 
family  of  artists.  Another  of  them  was  John  van  Coninxloo,  who 
painted  pictures  that  can  still  be  seen.  The  student  may  read 
about  him  in  J.  Roosvals’  book  on  Brussels  wood-carved  altars 
in  Swedish  churches.^  This  John  and  Bernard  and  other  relations 
and  artists  got  into  horrible  trouble  together  in  1527,  and  were 
prosecuted  for  heretical  tendencies  and  opinions.  It  is  from  the 
record  of  these  proceedings  that  we  get  information  about  the 
few  leading  facts  of  Van  Orley’s  life  that  are  known.  There  was 
also  Cornells  van  Coninxloo,  who  signed  a picture  of  the  Virgin’s 
Parents  which  is  in  the  Brussels  Museum,  dated  1526.  It  contains 
a few  figures  and  an  immense  structure  of  elaborately  carved  and 
decorated  stonework,  half-throne,  half-apse,  before  or  on  which 
they  sit.  The  name  Cornells  is  likewise  signed  on  the  hem  of  the 
Virgin’s  garment  in  a Madonna  picture  imitated  from  Mabuse’s 
Palermo  triptych.®  They  are  skilfully  painted  and  entertaining 
works,  but  decadent.  If  Peter  Coeck  of  Alost,  referred  to  in  a 

1 Strassburg,  Heitz,  1903,  p.  38. 

2 In  the  collection  of  M.  de  Richter,  See  Revue  de  VArt,  October  1908. 


HIS  FOLLOWERS 


431 


previous  chapter,  was  in  fact  Orley’s  pupil,  as  Van  Mander  asserts, 
and  if  he  was  the  same  person  as  the  Master  of  the  Last  Suppers, 
who  was  so  busy  at  Antwerp,  here  is  a link  to  carry  the 
Brussels  Master’s  influence  down  the  years  a little  further,  for 
Peter  Bruegel  was  Coeck’s  pupil.  Coeck  is  known  to  have  been 
connected  with  the  tapestry  industry.  Friedlander  cites  flve 
drawings  attributed  to  him  in  the  British  Museum,  which  show 
a close  relation  to  Van  Orley  ; he  is  not  willing,  off-hand,  to  refuse 
assent  to  the  traditional  designation.  An  Orley  element  is  evident 
in  pictures  from  the  Last  Supper  workshop,  but  the  questions  thus 
raised  and  the  lines  of  inquiry  opened  cannot  be  pursued  here  or 
by  me.  They  belong  to  the  later  school  and  the  growing,  not  the 
fading,  style.  I resist  with  ease  the  temptation  to  linger  over  these 
men  and  thankfully  turn  away  from  Bernard  van  Orley,  his  fol- 
lowers, and  all  his  works. 


CHAPTER  XXIX 


JAN  MOSTAERT  AND  SOME  ANONYMOUS  DUTCH  PAINTERS 

Our  survey  of  the  work  of  the  Netherlands  painters  has  now  to 
be  eoncluded  with  an  examination  of  the  pictures  painted  in  Holland 
by  artists  down  to  and  including  Lucas  van  Leyden,  who  carried 
on  and  presently  transformed  the  ideals  and  traditions  of  the  school 
of  Geertgen.  If  the  churches  of  the  Low  Countries  had  remained 
furnished  and  decorated  as  they  were  in  the  middle  of  the  sixteenth 
century,  we  should  not  only  have  had  many  more  painted  altar-pieces 
by  the  best  artists  to  guide  us  but  also  examples  of  wall  and  vault 
decoration.  Destruction  of  pictures  and  windows  in  Reformation 
riots  and  the  whitewashing  of  walls  have  deprived  us  of  most  of 
these  works  of  art,  but  in  Holland  a few  examples  of  painted  vaults 
survive.  We  have  already  dealt  with  the  paintings  at  Zutphen ; 
those  of  Alkmaar  and  Naarden  will  presently  claim  our  attention, 
but  a few  minor  artists  must  first  be  dealt  with. 

The  reader  will  remember  that  thus  far  all  the  Dutch  artists 
whose  work  has  attracted  our  attention,  except  the  Delft  Virgo 
Master,  were  connected  with  the  city  of  Haarlem,  the  cradle  of 
Dutch  art.  Bouts,  Ouwater,  Geertgen,  all  led  us  to  Haarlem, 
and  in  the  years  to  come  other  great  painters  were  to  add  to  the 
reputation  of  that  art  centre,  though  it  was  not  destined  to  remain 
supreme.  Events  were  even  now  tending  to  elevate  Amsterdam 
to  a commanding  position  as  centre  of  the  waxing  energy  of  Dutch 
life.  Where  life  is  strongest  the  art  of  a people  necessarily  reaches 
its  fullest  development.  Haarlem,  therefore,  was  bound  to  hand 
on  the  torch  to  Amsterdam,  but  the  flame  was  also  kindled  in  other 
places,  so  that  in  the  great  days  of  the  seventeenth  century  there 
was  no  centre  of  population  in  Holland  without  its  group  of  meri- 
torious painters. 

The  moment  we  have  now  reached  was  marked  by  the  develop- 
ment of  Leyden  as  an  art  centre.  Delft  also  and  Gouda  were  awake. 

432 


THE  ALKMAAR  MASTER 


433 


In  fact,  wherever  the  printing  press  flourished  artists  may  be 
looked  for.  It  is  remarkable  that  Amsterdam  was  late  in  setting 
up  a press.  Whereas  Haarlem,  Leyden,  Delft,  Gouda,  Deventer, 
even  Schiedam  and  Schoonhoven,  had  their  printing  houses  in  the 
fifteenth  century,  it  was  1518  before  a printer  settled  regularly 
at  Amsterdam.  Whether  the  painter  we  have  now  to  consider  came 
out  of  Haarlem  or  Leyden  is  not  known.  Some  critics  vote  for 
the  one,  some  for  the  other,  and  he  may  have  come  from  either. 
It  is  away  up  at  Alkmaar  that  we  light  upon  him.  In  date,  he 
belonged  to  the  same  generation  as  Lucas  van  Leyden’s  father, 
Hugo  Jacobsz,  and  some  think  that  may  have  been  he,  but  it  is  a 
sheer  guess.  His  little  modicum  of  fame  is  based  upon  the  paintings 
of  the  Works  of  Mercy  on  six  panels,  some  dated  1504,  which  belong 
to  St.  Lawrence’s  Church.  They  are  more  interesting  than 
beautiful,  and  the  public  is  much  entertained  by  them  when  they 
are  loaned  to  an  exhibition.  From  the  nature  of  the  subjects 
they  introduce  us  to  the  contemporary  life  of  their  day,  giving 
us  glimpses  of  Dutch  streets  and  ordinary  folk,  and  the  horrible 
interior  of  a prison.  Here  are  no  saints  or  imagined  adorations, 
but  just  common  burghers  and  beggars,  only  among  the  latter, 
and  as  one  of  them,  is  always  Christ,  not  otherwise  recognizable 
than  by  the  typical  but  unhaloed  head.  Nothing  distinguishes 
the  well-to-do  save  the  solid  sufficiency  of  their  clothes.  There 
is  here  no  splendour  of  costume  or  Antwerp  extravagance,  but 
solid  Dutch  well-being.  The  variety  of  the  human  types  is  most 
precious.  Bruegel  is  anticipated.  Nor  are  heads  the  only  ex- 
pressive elements.  Each  figure  is  individual  in  crouch  or  strut. 
It  is  a very  simple  art ; not  much  learning  in  the  perspective,  no 
bold  foreshortenings,  no  subtlety  of  atmosphere  or  colouring ; 
but  the  colours  bright  and  good,  the  story  well  told,  the  effect 
decorative.  Learned  critics  find  traces  of  the  not  very  obvious 
influence  of  Geertgen  and  discover  elements  which  were  to  be  handed 
on  to  Scorel.  They  may  be  right.  The  artist  similarly  expresses 
his  simple  nature  in  a picture  of  Christ  in  the  House  of  Simon 
at  Budapest  (No.  690).'  The  head  of  Christ  in  it  is  equivalent 
to  a signature.  Here  again  the  figures  efficiently  tell  the  tale. 

1 It  was  in  the  Ropp  sale  (No.  59)  in  1890.  Friedlander  attributed  it  to  the  Master 
of  the  Magdalen  Legend. 


434  JAN  MOSTAERT  AND  SOME  ANONYMOUS  PAINTERS 


Other  pictures  attributed  to  him  are  in  Amsterdam  Museum  (Nos. 
534  and  535),  but  I cannot  accept  as  his  either  the  Dresden  Holy 
Family  which  Vogelsang  gives  to  him,  or  the  picture  in  the 
J.  G.  Johnson  Collection  (No.  351)  assigned  to  him  by  Valentiner. 
Both  seem  to  me  the  work  of  separate  artists,  wholly  different 
from  him  in  nature,  education,  and  style. 

The  likeness  also  escapes  me  between  his  work  and  the  rude 
decorative  paintings  on  the  wooden  vault  of  the  Church  of  St. 
Guy  at  Naarden,  on  the  road  from  Utrecht  to  Amsterdam.^  The 
painter  of  those  unfortunately  only  identified  himself  by  his 
“ mark,”  to  which  he  added  the  arms  of  St.  Luke,  the  patron  of 
his  craft,  and  of  Amsterdam,  the  city  from  which  he  doubtless 
came.  The  work  was  finished  in  1518,  that  is  to  say,  at  a time 
when  Cornelis  Engebrechtsen,  Jacob  van  Oostsanen,  and  Lucas 
van  Leyden  were  all  at  work.  The  painter  seems  to  have  been 
influenced  by  the  second.  Truth  to  tell,  the  pictures  are  not 
great  works  of  art,  even  when  every  allowance  has  been  made 
for  the  action  of  time  and  blundering  restorers.  They  depict 
a set  of  Old  Testament  types  and  of  the  incidents  in  the  Passion 
they  are  supposed  to  foreshadow,  painted  in  a bold,  summary  way, 
to  produce  their  effect  at  a distance.  They  may  once  have  been 
effective.  They  possess  the  narrative  virtue  common  in  the  Dutch 
School,  and  are  not  ill-composed.  Faces  are  often  strongly  charac- 
terized to  the  degree  of  exaggeration.  Groups  are  reduced  to  as 
small  a number  of  figures  as  may  be.  xAction  is  emphatic.  The 
design,  in  fact,  is  not  bad  ; if  the  painting  is  crude,  the  position 
it  was  calculated  for  must  be  remembered. 

A finer  set  of  vault  paintings,  finished  in  1519,  are  those  which 
I had  the  good  fortune  to  see  still  in  their  original  position  over 
the  choir  of  the  Church  at  Alkmaar.  They  produced  rather  a 
striking  effect  even  in  their  sadly  ruined  condition.  They  have 
since  been  removed  for  better  keeping  to  the  Museum  at  Amster- 
dam. The  subject  depicted  is  the  Last  Judgment  and  the  design 
is  on  traditional  lines,  with  the  newly  risen  folk  below,  the  heavenly 

^ The  Naarden,  Alkmaar,  Warmenhuizen,  and  Enkhuysen  vault  paintings  are  repro- 
duced in  G.  van  Kalcken’s  Peintures  EccUsiastiques  du  moyen-dge,  Haarlem.  The 
Warmenhuizen  pictures  do  not  fall  within  our  present  scope.  Those  at  Enkhuysen  are 
so  badly  damaged  as  to  be  of  little  use  for  our  inquiry. 


THE  BUYS  FAMILY 


435 


powers  in  the  air,  Hell  on  the  sinister  and  Heaven  on  the  dexter 
side.  For  visibility  at  a distance  the  figures  or  groups  are  widely 
spaced,  with  attention  paid  to  silhouette  rather  than  modelling. 
They  are  ably  drawn  on  the  whole,  ugly  in  type  but  vigorous, 
the  work  of  an  artist  far  superior  to  the  Naarden  painter.  Resem- 
blances to  the  style  of  Jacob  Cornelisz  of  Oostsanen  have  been 
pointed  out,  and  I am  far  from  certain  that  he  may  not  have  had 
a hand  in  the  design  ; but  the  finger  of  probability  points  to  his 
elder  brother,  Cornells  Buys.  The  Buys  family  produced  several 
generations  of  painters,  respectable  craftsmen,  though  not  men  of 
genius.  There  was  a second  Cornells  Buys,  son  of  the  supposed 
painter  of  this  vault,  and  pictures  by  him  are  known.^  The  elder 
Cornells  is  recorded  to  have  been  paid  in  1516  for  painting  a coat- 
of-arms  in  the  Alkmaar  vault,  and  it  is  likely  that  the  whole  set 
of  heraldic  decorations  were  by  the  same  hand  as  the  Last  Judgment. 
He  was  the  best  painter  resident  in  Alkmaar.  He  was  also  the 
first  Master  of  Scorel,  whose  talent  he  is  said  to  have  discovered. 
Scorel  on  his  return  from  Italy  about  1524  completed  a picture 
which  Buys  left  unfinished  at  his  death.  Attempts  to  attribute 
other  works  to  him  have  thus  far  failed  of  acceptance.  Of  his 
brother  Jacob  van  Oostsanen  we  shall  have  more  to  say  presently. 

An  unattractive,  but  historically  not  unimportant  painter, 
brought  to  light  by  Friedlander  ^ must  receive  at  least  a passing 
notice.  The  probability  is  that  he,  like  the  Virgo  Master,  worked 
at  Delft,  but  in  the  early  years  of  the  sixteenth  century.  His 
most  important  known  picture  is  a Crucifixion  triptych  presented 
to  the  National  Gallery  by  the  late  Lord  Brownlow.  It  is  one 
of  those  multitudinous  Calvaries,  at  that  day  popular,  to-day 
repellent,  with  all  manner  of  incidents  crowded  together  on 
the  three  panels  in  a manner  involving  no  little  knowledge  and 
ingenuity,  and  an  imagination  callous  to  the  horrible.  The  wings 
of  a picture  shown  in  Amsterdam  Museum  (No.  50)  are  attributed 
to  the  same  artist.  They  contain  portraits  of  a Burgomaster  of 
Delft  and  his  family ; in  the  sky  of  each  wing  is  the  rude  repre- 

1 Amsterdam,  No.  666  ; Vienna,  No.  768.  A Good  Samaritan,  dated  1537,  shown 
in  the  Utrecht  Exhibition  of  1913  (No.  89),  has  also  been  attributed  to  him,  but  very 
doubtfully.  He  died  at  Alkmaar  in  1546.  See  remarks  by  Prof.  J.  Six  in  G.  van  Kalcken’s 
Peintures  Ecclesiastiques  du  moyen-dgey  1st  series. 

**  Burlington  Mag.y  May  1913. 


436  JAN  MOSTAERT  AND  SOME  ANONYMOUS  PAINTERS 


sentation  of  a mock  sun.  Another  triptych  in  a Dutch  private 
collection,  one  with  a Crucifixion  in  Cologne  Museum  (No.  492), 
and  a Virgin  with  St.  Bernard  in  the  Archbishop’s  Gallery  at  Utrecht 
are  also  given  to  him.  Friedlander  finds  him  as  good  an  artist  as 
his  Dutch  contemporaries,  but  save  as  a portraitist  he  fails  to  stir 
in  me  the  faintest  quiver  of  emotional  response. 

There  are  Crucifixion  triptychs  at  Aix-la-Chapelle  and  Turin 
(No.  306)  which  give  their  names  to  two  more  painters  of  this  date. 
The  Turin  picture  is  by  the  same  hand  as  a Crucifixion  at  Frankfurt 
(No.  106),  another  in  tempera  on  linen  at  Lille,  and  perhaps  one 
in  the  Brussels  Gallery  (No.  126).  It  has  been  wrongly  attributed 
to  Cornelis  Engebrechtsen — a name  commonly  written  under 
anonymous  pictures  of  this  kind  and  period  when  they  are  not 
given  to  Jacob  van  Oostsanen.  I find  the  Turin  artist  preferable 
to  him  of  the  Brownlow  triptyeh.  He  is  less  exuberantly  multi- 
tudinous, and  his  individual  figures,  especially  those  of  children, 
are  good.  There  is  an  excellent  group  of  two  boys  and  two  dogs 
at  the  base  of  the  Turin  Crucifixion,  which  proves  how  well  he  was 
suited  to  treat  genre  scenes.  That,  in  fact,  was  the  direetion  in 
which  the  Dutch  nature  was  capable  of  suceessful  artistic  expression, 
that  and  portraiture  and  landscape.  I doubt  whether  artists  left 
to  themselves  would  have  painted  these  abominable  Crucifixions  ; 
but  as  a German  writer  describes  one  of  them  as  “ genial,”  it  may 
be  that  even  to-day  there  are  people  somewhere  who  ean  find 
pleasure  in  them.  At  all  events,  in  the  brutal  late  Middle  Age 
patrons  liked  them  and  painters  had  to  produce  them.  It  took 
the  genius  of  a Bruegel  and  generations  of  landscape  artists  to 
attract  public  taste  toward  subjects  pleasanter  than  the  old  round 
of  sacred  horrors  and  evaporated  traditions. 

Having  thus  swept  these  minor  Dutehmen  out  of  the  way,  we 
can  deal  with  three  contemporary  painters,  not  all  of  equal  merit, 
but  definite  personalities  known  to  us  by  their  proper  names  and  by 
a considerable  body  of  work.  I refer  to  Jan  Mostaert  of  Haarlem, 
Cornelis  Engebrechtsen  of  Leyden,  and  Jacob  van  Oostsanen  of 
Amsterdam.  As  the  art  of  Mostaert  does  not  lead  on  like  that  of 
the  others  to  the  work  of  Lucas  van  Leyden,  it  will  be  best  to  deal 
with  him  first.  If  the  reader  desires  full  information  as  to  the 
grounds  on  which  the  name  of  Jan  Mostaert,  having  at  one  time 


JAN  MOSTAERT 


437 


been  affixed  to  the  group  of  pictures  now  attributed  to  Isenbrant, 
was  transferred  to  another  group,  he  should  refer  to  G.  Gluck’s 
article  in  the  Zeitschrift  fur  bildende  Kunst  (1896,  p.  265)  and  his 
further  remarks  in  a paper  contributed  to  the  Beitrdge  F.  Wickhoff 
gezvidmet  (Vienna,  1903,  p.  64)  ; or  he  can  find  the  proposition 
sufficiently  discussed  in  Sander  Pierron’s  book  Les  Mostaert  (Brussels, 
1912).  Suffice  it  here  briefly  to  state  that  what  is  known  of  Mos- 
taert’s  life  or  recorded  about  his  paintings  has  been  found  in  tolerable 
agreement  with  the  internal  evidence  provided  by  the  pictures  now 
to  be  discussed.  The  demonstration  of  this  agreement  as  far  as 
it  goes  is  tedious,  and  being  easily  accessible  need  not  here  be 
repeated.  It  is  plausible,  but  not  entirely  convincing. 

The  date  of  Jan  Mostaert’s  birth  is  not  recorded.  The  first 
we  hear  of  him  is  that  he  was  at  work  as  a painter  at  Haarlem  in 
1500.  He  was,  therefore,  probably  born  between  1470  and  1475, 
doubtless  at  Haarlem  and  of  a good  family,  as  Van  Mander  records, 
but  the  reader  will  do  well  not  to  put  too  much  faith  in  the  legend 
of  his  descent  from  an  ennobled  Crusader,  though  few  West  Euro- 
peans now  alive  can  have  wholly  escaped  such  ancestry.  It  is 
asserted,  and  generally  believed,  that  Mostaert  served  as  Court- 
painter  to  Margaret  of  Austria  during  eighteen  years,  but  old 
account  books  and  inventories  shed  no  light  upon  this  appointment, 
though  they  might  be  expected  to  do  so.  A single  entry  recording 
the  presentation  by  him  to  Margaret  of  a portrait  of  her  late  husband 
gives  no  indication  of  his  occupying  or  having  occupied  an  official 
position.'  We  have  only  Van  Mander’s  word  to  go  by.  Accepting 
that,  we  may  estimate  the  date  of  his  entry  into  the  Regent’s 
service  at  about  1503  and  of  his  retirement  1521.  It  is  recorded 
of  him  that  he  had  a good  presence  and  courtly  manners,  gifts 
which  are  not  infallible  signals  of  high  artistic  endowment.  As 
the  Princess  employed  Jacopo  de’  Barbari,  Bernard  van  Orley, 
and  perhaps  Jan  Mostaert  for  her  art- work  in  a day  when  Quentin 
Massys  and  other  great  artists  were  active  in  her  dominions,  and 
as  she  evidently  preferred  their  work  to  Diirer’s,  her  patronage 

' He  is  simply  described  as  “ A painter  who  has  presented  to  my  Lady  a picture  of 
our  late  Lord  of  Savoy  done  from  the  life,  named  Jehan  Masturd,”  and  this  in  1523, 
two  years  after  his  supposed  retirement  after  eighteen  years  of  service  with  her.  The 
prince  died  in  1504,  the  latest  date  for  the  picture. 


438  JAN  MOSTAERT  AND  SOME  ANONYMOUS  PAINTERS 


adds  nothing  to  an  artist’s  reputation,  but  rather  detracts  from  it. 
Mostaert  appears  to  have  settled  in  Haarlem  in  honourable  condi- 
tions after  his  retreat  from  court,  if  to  court  he  went.  It  is  only 
at  Haarlem  that  he  is  recorded.  In  1549  he  obtained  leave  from 
the  municipal  authorities  to  absent  himself  from  home  for  eighteen 
months  in  order  that  he  might  paint  the  high  altar-piece  for  the 
church  at  Hoorn.  He  died  at  Haarlem  in  1556. 

It  is  tantalizing  not  to  be  able  to  accept  for  Mostaert,  as  attri- 
buted by  Cohen  and  Gliick,  a delightful  half-length  Holy  Family 
in  a Room.  The  picture  is  in  the  Cologne  Gallery  (No.  486),  and 
is  one  of  the  small  surviving  number  of  really  delightful  early 
Dutch  works,  painted  at  the  very  end  of  the  fifteenth  century, 
which  retain  the  pure  mediaeval  spirit  expressed  with  the  technique 
developed  by  the  Van  Eyck  school.  We  may  group  it  (though 
not  as  by  the  same  hand)  with  the  Dresden  Holy  Family  and  the 
less  excellent  Turin  Madonna,  examples  of  a fleeting  moment  of 
art-production  when  the  light  of  the  Van  Eycks  gave  a last  bright 
flicker  in  the  socket  before  its  final  extinction.  In  the  Cologne 
picture  we  look  once  again  into  a mediaeval  interior  simply  furnished 
in  perfect  taste,  with  its  bit  of  carving  on  the  arm  of  a chair, 
its  cushion  heraldically  embroidered,  its  little  jewel-case  and 
single  book  upon  a shelf,  its  dinanderie  on  the  credence,  its  earthen- 
ware table-service,  and  the  soundly  framed  oak  door  opened 
behind — everything  solid,  simple,  and  good  of  its  kind  ; no  exag- 
geration, no  flummery,  no  flourishes,  and  the  people  and  their 
costumes  to  match.  How  different  from  the  approaching  Man- 
nerism of  Antwerp  and  the  commercial  complexities  of  the  days 
so  near  at  hand  ! 

A genuine  picture  by  Mostaert  of  little  later  date  is  the  version 
of  the  ancestors  of  the  Virgin,  or  Stem  of  Jesse,  in  the  Stroganoff 
Collection  at  Rome.  It  caused  the  critics  a lot  of  trouble  till 
Friedlander  justly  pointed  out  the  true  author.  It  is  indifferently 
eomposed,  the  figures  patched  about  on  branches  as  the  fruit  of 
Jesse’s  tree,  forming  a confused  assembly  strung  together  in  the 
air  and  not  logically  supported.  The  individual  figures  are  well 
enough,  varied  in  type,  pose,  and  costume,  with  strange  turbaned 
head-coverings.  An  affiliation  with  the  style  of  Geertgen  is  so 
obvious  that  the  former  attribution  of  the  picture  to  him  needs 


JAN  MOSTAERT 


439 


little  apology.  What  is  visible  of  the  foreground  shows  Mostaert 
as  much  interested  in  garden  details  as  were  his  immediate 
Haarlem  predecessors. 

Dependence  upon  Geertgen  is  openly  proclaimed  in  another 
relatively  early  work,  the  Deposition  triptych  at  Amsterdam 
(No.  1675),  which  is  dated  1507.  The  penultimate  figure  of  the 
date  is  illegible,  but  hardly  doubtful.  The  main  group  of  figures 
on  the  central  panel  is  closely  imitated  from  Geertgen’s  picture  at 
Vienna,  with  the  omission  of  a portrait- attendant  just  behind, 
whom  Mostaert  had  no  reason  to  repeat.  He  may  have  known  who 
the  man  was  ; I wish  we  did.  The  landscape  is  altered,  and  much 
for  the  worse.  The  wings  with  kneeling  donors  and  their  saints 
give  an  early  instance  of  the  painter’s  style  in  portraiture. 

It  is  probable  that  the  well-known  altar-piece  at  Brussels, 
temporarily  called  of  Oultremont  from  its  passing  owner,  but  better 
to  be  designated  after  its  Haarlem  donor,  Albert  van  Adrichen 
(ob.  1510),  was  painted  a year  or  two  before  the  Amsterdam 
triptych.  The  main  panel  depicts  the  Descent  from  the  Cross. 
Geertgen  influences  may  be  traced  in  it,  but  Mostaert  was  not  here 
dependent  on  him  or  on  any  other  painter.  The  design  was 
inspired  by  contemporary  sculpture  in  wood.  Like  Roger’s 
picture  of  the  same  subjeet,  this  is  really  a representation  on  the 
flat  of  a group  of  painted  sculpture  framed  within  a gilded  niche. 
It  is  mediaeval  in  feeling,  the  figures  representative,  the  event  not 
thought  of  as  actually  happening  and  beheld,  but  rather  as  symboli- 
cally constructed.  Each  figure  is  thoroughly  studied  in  every  part 
and  painted  with  extreme  care.  The  rising  artist  was  obviously 
determined  to  make  a success  with  what  may  have  been  his  first 
important  commission.  The  insides  of  the  wings  are  rather  more 
pictorial,  and  the  figures  are  closely  crowded.  The  youth  and  a 
boy  who  turn  their  backs  on  us  in  the  Ecce  Homo  are  indeed 
admirably  drawn.  Overhead,  on  the  other  wing,  we  have  festoon- 
holding cherubs  borrowed  indirectly  from  Memling.  The  donor 
kneels  on  the  outside  of  the  wings  in  the  foreground  of  a Christ 
bearing  the  Cross,  rather  a stern  and  rigid  portrait,  painted  with 
decision  and  some  insight.  St.  Catherine,  standing  behind,  has  a 
turned-back  sleeve  lined  with  a ribbed  material  of  a kind  we  often 
meet  with  worn  by  the  Magdalens  of  Jacob  van  Oostsanen.  The 


440  JAN  MOSTAERT  AND  SOME  ANONYMOUS  PAINTERS 


colouring  is  very  brilliant,  in  effect  a mosaic  of  brightly  contrasting 
patches.  If  the  picture  still  glows  and  sparkles,  how  it  must  have 
flared  when  it  was  new  ! It  may  well  have  produced  an  excellent 
effect  above  the  altar  of  a church  as  the  centre  of  a vestmented 
ceremonial. 

The  head  of  Christ  in  this  Crowning  with  Thorns  is  repeated 
with  little  change  on  a half-length  panel,  which  was  in  the  Willett 
Collection,  and  other  allied  versions. ^ It  is  curious  to  note  an 
accidental  approximation  in  treatment  between  these  and  a corre- 
sponding group  of  pictures  of  the  same  subject  by  Solario.  Direct 
imitation  by  one  of  these  painters  of  the  other  can  hardly  be 
postulated. 

A little  picture,  of  which  there  are  two  differing  versions,  one 
in  the  National  Gallery  (No.  1,080),  the  other  at  Dijon,  offers  a 
curious  example  of  the  illogical  mediaeval  mind.  It  depiets  the  Head 
of  John  the  Baptist  on  a charger  mourned  over  by  a fluttering  flock 
of  little  angels  and  cherubs.  The  saint’s  friends  on  earth  might 
have  mourned  over  it,  but  why  the  denizens  of  heaven,  with  whom 
ex  hypothesi  his  beatified  soul  was  triumphantly  at  rest,  should 
come  to  earth  to  weep  over  his  head  is  not  easy  to  understand. 
Both  pietures  are  delicately  and  decoratively  painted.  St.  John’s 
Heads  were  popular  in  the  fifteenth  and  early  sixteenth  eenturies. 
There  was  a manufacture  of  them  for  export  among  the  Alablasterers 
of  Nottingham,  and  many  examples  survive.  Lombard  painters 
(Solario  again)  produced  them,  but  only  Mostaert,  I believe,  ever 
surrounded  the  head  with  mourning  cherubs. 

A Last  Judgment  triptych  in  the  Wesendonck  Collection  at 
Bonn,^  painted  about  1510,  clearly  indicates  Mostaert’s  limitations. 
The  gigantic  drama  on  which  the  imagination  of  Christendom 
had  dwelt  for  upwards  of  a thousand  years  eould  scarcely  be  more 
feebly  represented.  A confused  and  concentrated  group  of  the 
Heavenly  Host  overhead  and  a few  scurrying  figures  in  the  baek- 
ground  do  duty  for  the  fate  of  all  the  generations  of  mankind  and 
all  the  powers  of  triumphant  Heaven  and  defeated  Hell  ! They 
form  an  insignificant  background  to  the  kneeling  figures  of  the  Van 

1 At  Verona  (382),  Budapest  (1,073),  Burgos,  and  in  the  Lanfranconi  sale  (1895, 
No.  46),  Van  Stolk  (?  = Willett’s),  and  Stchoukine  (Moscow)  Collections. 

2 Diisseldorf  Exhibition  (1904),  No.  200. 


JAN  MOSTAERT 


441 


Alkemade  donors  and  their  children  who  are  the  real  subjects  of 
the  picture  and  are  well  and  carefully  portrayed.  The  extensive 
landscape  is  more  interesting  than  the  events  occurring  in  it.  It 
appears  to  depict  a valley  in  a limestone  district,  and  lends  some 
support  to  the  suggestion  that  the  painter  had  visited  Savoy  in 
the  suite  of  his  possible  patroness,  Margaret  of  Austria.  Another 
Last  Judgment  at  Copenhagen,  painted,  say,  half  a dozen  years 
later,  spreads  and  increases  the  number  of  figures  aloft  without 
adding  to  the  wonder,  and  makes  the  little  tribe  of  the  resurrected 
somewhat  more  prominent  and  agitated,  but  again  the  landscape 
and  the  portraits  arrest  and  steadily  maintain  our  attention,  and 
the  great  event  is  only  a disturbing  adjunct.  The  kneeling  donors 
are  unusually  stately,  and  have  had  their  long  robes  carefully 
arranged  for  them  before  the  curtain  went  up. 

It  is  only  necessary  to  mention  the  pair  of  wings  with  donors 
in  the  Brussels  Gallery  (painted  about  1520)  for  the  sake  of  the 
background  incidents.  The  tops  of  the  panels  have  been  cut  off, 
and  with  them  the  heavenly  apparitions  beheld  in  the  one  case  by 
the  Sibyl  and  Augustus,  in  the  other  by  St.  Paul  on  his  way  to 
Damascus.  The  landscapes  are  here  more  extensive,  with  faint 
hills  in  the  far  distance  and  impossible  rocks  nearer  at  hand,  but 
not  like  Patinir’s.  The  groups  of  active  little  figures  are  well 
drawn  and  composed,  as  usually  with  the  Dutch.  Why  Mostaert 
was  so  fond  of  introducing  the  Sibyl  and  Augustus  is  unexplained. 
Pierron  cites  half  a dozen  examples  from  his  backgrounds. 

Thus  far  Mostaert  has  shown  himself  a purely  Gothic  painter, 
adhering  in  forms  and  traditions  to  the  old  school,  but  in  his 
Adoration  of  the  Magi  at  Amsterdam  (No.  1,674),  painted  about 
1520,  he  introduces  into  his  foreground,  evidently  under  the  influence 
of  Jacob  van  Oostsanen,  some  architectural  features  of  partly 
Renaissance  type,  ill-understood  and  with  decorative  details 
foreign  to  the  style.  It  is  an  excellent  picture,  with  a nice  though 
rather  globe-headed  Virgin  and  some  admirably  grave  and  reverent 
kings,  notably  him  on  the  right  with  a collar  of  roses  and  links  — 
an  obvious  portrait.  A talkative  middle-aged  man  behind  may 
possibly  be  the  artist  himself.  The  background  is  animated  with 
many  little  figures  near  the  foot  of  a battlemented  staircase  and 
others  further  away.  The  colours  are  well  chosen  and  massed 


442  JAN  MOSTAERT  AND  SOME  ANONYMOUS  PAINTERS 


after  the  fashion  of  a stained  glass  window.  All  the  work  is  done 
with  old-fashioned  preeision. 

Little  of  Mostaert’s  work  produced  after  1520  has  come  down 
to  us.  He  is  supposed  to  have  been  busily  employed  for  another 
thirty-five  years,  but  we  are  asked  to  assume  that  what  he  made 
has  perished  or  remains  unidentified.  Haarlem  was  destroyed  by 
fire  in  1576,  and  many  of  the  artist’s  later  pictures  may  have  fallen 
a prey  to  the  flames.  Altar-pieces  are  likely  to  have  been  ruined 
by  image-breakers  in  the  Reformation  troubles.  In  the  J.  G. 
Johnson  Collection  is  a Crucifixion  which  Friedlander  attributes  to 
Mostaert  at  the  guessed  date  of  about  1530.  If  that  date  is  correct, 
rarity  endows  the  picture  with  an  importance  which  its  intrinsic 
merit  could  not  command.  It  manifests  Mostaert  directly  or  at 
second-hand  under  the  influence  of  Massys  and  the  Antwerp 
School.  He  had  to  throw  his  mourning  angels  into  violent  agitation 
and  crowd  figures  together  about  the  cross,  all  gesticulating  at 
once.  The  mountain  background  is  imaginatively  conceived  and 
the  picture  has  merit,  but  it  lacks  the  old-world  charm  of  earlier 
days  and  fails  to  replace  it  by  frankly  modern  humanity. 

The  reader  who  wishes  to  acquaint  himself  with  every  one  of 
the  master’s  pictures  will  find  a list  of  them  in  Friedlander’s  book. 
Enough  have  been  cited  to  show  the  character  of  his  religious  art. 
There  remains,  however,  one  remarkable  landscape  which  cannot 
be  passed  over.  It  is  in  the  Van  Stolk  Collection  at  Haarlem,  and 
there  is  a small  but  good  coloured  reproduction  of  it  in  the  published 
catalogue  (No.  408).  Van  Mander  tells  us  that  Mostaert  left 
unfinished  a West  Indian  landscape.  This  can  scarcely  be  it,  for 
it  is  not  unfinished,  but  it  is  a work  of  like  character.  It  represents 
a small  company  of  European  invaders  marching  under  the  banner 
of  Burgundy  round  the  base  of  some  impossible  rocks,  supporting 
a rude  hut  which  can  only  be  reached  by  ladders.  A larger  band  of 
naked  savages  come  running  forward  to  the  attack,  and  others  cast 
down  stones  from  the  rock.  The  leaders  of  the  band  are  being 
overthrown  or  turning  in  flight.  Cows  and  sheep  watch  the  contest 
with  indifference.  Sea  spreads  away  into  the  distance  on  the  one 
side ; mountains  rise  on  the  other.  There  is  nothing  exotic  about 
the  landscape,  but  it  makes  a pleasing  picture,  and  the  running 
crowd  of  little  figures  was  a subject  to  Mostaert’s  taste.  The  pic- 


MOSTAERT’S  PORTRAITS 


443 


ture  gives  rise  to  rather  a curious  psychological  problem,  Wliat 
was  the  attitude  of  mind  of  an  early  sixteenth-century  Dutchman 
who  went  to  a local  painter  and  ordered  of  him  a West  Indian 
landscape  ? Was  it  like  that  of  the  rich  peasant  who  asked  for  a 
picture  of  his  dead  father  from  a painter  who  had  never  seen  him, 
and  when  he  received  it  said,  “ So  that  is  my  dear  father  ; but 
ah,  how  changed  ! ” It  is  hard  to  put  ourselves  at  the  point  of 
view  of  people  who  had  not  begun  to  regard  landscape  as  the 
portraiture  of  nature,  but  thought  of  it  only  as  a decorative  or 
emblematic  frame  for  figures.  During  the  sixteenth  century 
the  change  in  point  of  view  was  accomplished,  but  the  soil  of 
Holland  had  to  become  infinitely  precious  to  its  people  for  the 
price  paid  in  the  blood  of  their  sons  that  emancipated  it,  before 
the  actual  landscape  about  their  homes  was  found  a worthy 
subject  for  pictorial  treatment. 

As  a portrait-painter  Mostaert  reached  the  highest  level  of  his 
artistic  achievement.  The  reader’s  attention  must  therefore  be 
directed  in  conclusion  to  a few  typical  examples.  If,  as  is  recorded, 
Mostaert  painted  from  the  life  a portrait  of  Margaret’s  husband, 
Philibert  of  Savoy,  that  must  have  happened  before  his  death  in 
1504.  The  original  has  disappeared  ; there  is  a copy  of  it  at 
INIadrid,  called  a portrait  of  Philip  the  Fair.  Neither  this  nor  the 
engravings  of  two  lost  portraits  of  Philip  the  Fair  (ob.  1506)  enable 
us  to  form  a very  clear  opinion  about  his  early  style.  His  earliest 
extant  portrait  is  perhaps  the  bust  of  a nameless  individual  at 
Copenhagen,  whose  prominent  coat-of-arms  hanging  on  a tree 
has  not  yet  been  made  to  yield  his  identity.  It  is  hard  to  believe 
that  anyone  can  have  had  a head  like  that,  bald  as  an  egg  and 
egg-shaped,  with  eyes  very  high  up,  nose  very  long,  chin  very 
double,  huge  oblong  cheeks,  and  ears  as  it  were  gummed  on 
along  the  edge  of  them  ; but  Mostaert  cannot  be  held  responsible 
for  the  work  of  the  man’s  parents.  In  the  background,  before 
his  house-door,  the  Sibyl  and  Augustus  behold  a,  to  us  invisible. 
Virgin  and  Child.  The  painting  is  well  characterized,  and  as  straight- 
forward as  in  a Van  Eyck.  It  is  honest  without  distinction,  the 
only  trace  of  breeding  visible  being  in  the  outline  of  a remote 
greyhound.  In  the  Berlin  Museum  (No.  59)  is  the  likeness  of  a 
dry  and  severe  individual  whose  initial  was  A (so  his  buttons  inform 


444  JAN  MOSTAERT  AND  SOME  ANONYMOUS  PAINTERS 


us),  and  who  wore  a medallion  of  the  Annunciation  in  his  cap. 
Though  painted  as  late  as  about  1515,  it  is  work  of  the  old  school, 
with  plain  background,  head  in  three-quarters  to  the  right,  fur- 
trimmed  coat  thrown  open,  hands  in  repose  on  a cushion,  the  left 
firmly  gripping  a pair  of  gloves  as  though  afraid  someone  would 
try  to  snatch  them  away.  No  one  will  ever  snatch  anything 
without  a struggle  from  this  grim  dictatorial  person.  Perhaps 
the  painter  did  not  see  the  best  of  him,  but  what  he  saw  he  very 
efficiently  set  down.  About  the  same  date  he  painted  a likeness 
of  Joost  van  Bronckhorst,  the  young  lord  of  Bleyswyck,  which 
was  in  the  Hainauer  Collection,  a well-dressed  and  rather  stolid 
youth  with  an  unpleasing  mouth  and  a fashionable  hat.  This  time 
the  background  is  decoratively  filled  with  landscape,  which  does 
not  fall  away  behind  the  figure  very  well.  I think  Mostaert  liked 
painting  the  young  man’s  clothes,  and  especially  his  embroidered 
collar,  better  than  his  face.  More  interesting  is  the  Louvre  portrait 
of  John  van  Wassenaer,  burgrave  of  Leyden  and  governor  of 
Friesland,  who  was  made  a knight  of  the  Golden  Fleece  in  1516, 
and  probably  sat  to  Mostaert  in  that  same  year  on  the  occasion  of 
the  holding  of  a Chapter  of  the  Order  in  the  Church  of  St.  Bavon 
at  Haarlem,  where  his  heraldically  identified  stall  may  still  be  seen. 
The  great  scar  on  his  cheek  ^ is  the  memorial  of  an  honourable 
wound  received  by  him  in  1509  at  the  siege  of  Pavia.  The  face  is 
again  in  absolute  repose,  and  so  are  the  gloved  hands.  The  back- 
ground is  a landscape  with  David  and  Abigail,  some  camels  and  an 
ass  in  it.  The  beasts  might  bear  reference  to  St.  Jerome,  but  I see 
no  lion.  The  figure  this  time  is  better  relieved  against  the  distance. 
The  portrait  of  Van  Wassenaer’s  wife,  Josine,  daughter  of  John 
van  Egmont,  is  in  the  Wurzburg  Library,  but  it  is  not  a pendant 
to  the  preceding.  The  landscape  is  more  detailed  and  further 
extending,  being  looked  down  upon  from  a height,  as  seldom  with 
Mostaert.  This  is  one  of  the  rare  early  Northern  portraits  depicting 
an  obviously  well-bred  lady,  gentle,  refined,  patient,  and  dutiful, 
but  rather  sad.  She  wears  a necklace  of  roses  and  links  and  a 
beautiful  pendant,  and  her  costume  is  rich  but  not  ostentatious. 

^ More  emphatically  marked  in  a copy  which  belonged  to  the  Van  Ittersums,  and 
was  sold  by  auction  at  Amsterdam  (May  14,  1912,  No.  12).  The  name  of  the  subject  is 
fully  inscribed  on  it. 


MOSTAERT’S  PORTRAITS 


445 


The  poor  lady  was  not  destined  long  to  live.  Her  husband  was 
to  die  of  wounds  in  1523,  and  she  in  the  same  year,  we  know  not 
how.  We  have  no  portrait  of  her  father,  but  one  of  Charles  van 
Egmont,  Duke  of  Guelderland,  a poor  copy  of  a lost  original  by 
Mostaert.i 

Two  excellent  portraits  painted  about  1520  may  be  cited  as 
examples  of  the  artist’s  mature  style.  They  are  in  the  Galleries 
at  Brussels  (No.  538)  and  Liverpool  respectively.  The  names  of 
the  men  depicted  are  unknown.  In  both  the  background  is  un- 
usually elaborate.  The  former  must  have  been  painted  about  the 
same  time  as  the  Amsterdam  Magi.  It  introduces  architectural 
detail  of  similar  character,  and  a small  individual  reaching  out 
of  a window  not  unlike  the  man  behind  the  Magi  who  may  be  the 
painter  himself.  Here  he  is  yet  more  energetically  gesticulating, 
as  well  he  may,  for  he  sees  in  the  sky  the  enthroned  Virgin  sur- 
rounded by  fluttering  cherubs  whom  the  Sibyl  in  the  courtyard 
below  is  showing  to  Augustus  and  his  suite.  The  great  house  has 
an  Oriental  appearance  with  its  flat  roof  and  roof-garden,  a formally 
clipped  tree  standing  out  on  the  top  against  the  sky.  With  this 
background  and  a landscape  full  of  detail,  the  half-length  gentleman 
of  the  portrait  has  hard  work  to  retain  much  of  a spectator’s 
attention.  His  gloved  hands  hold  a cherry  and  rest  on  a cushion 
embroidered  with  a lion  passant,  which  some  herald  might  interpret 
for  us.  He  wears  one  of  those  1520  caps  with  the  lappets  upheld 
by  a ribbon  tied  above  the  forehead,  and  he  has  a nice  fur-lined 
cloak  and  all  things  proper  for  a nobleman.  Best  of  all,  his  face 
is  interesting — serious,  refined,  perhaps  a little  ascetic.  He  would 
have  looked  well  as  a bishop,  but  would  not  have  believed  all  he 
was  told,  though  in  a dangerous  day  he  would  probably  have  kept 
his  own  counsel.  The  Liverpool  gentleman  is  much  younger  and 
in  character  simpler.  The  panel  formed  part  of  a diptych,  for  the 
gloved  hands  this  time  are  joined  in  prayer,  though  there  is  no 
aspect  of  devotion  about  the  face.  None  was  expected  in  the 
portrait-halves  of  mediaeval  diptychs.  The  late  Middle  Age  took 
its  devotions  as  it  did  its  dinner,  in  a matter-of-fact  way.  The 
costume  closely  repeats  that  at  Brussels ; in  fact,  it  looks  as  though 
the  young  man  had  borrowed  his  elder’s  clothes.  A family  like- 

^ Golden  Fleece  Exhibition  (1907)  ; sold  at  Muller’s,  May  14,  1912  (No.  141). 

30 


446  JAN  MOSTAERT  AND  SOME  ANONYMOUS  PAINTERS 


ness  may  be  suspected  between  them,  but  the  critic  who  thought 
them  the  same  man  at  different  periods  of  his  life  was  a poor  phy- 
siognomist. They  might  possibly  be  father  and  son.  The  younger 
was  a keen  huntsman,  or  his  name  was  Hubert,  for  he  has  had  the 
Hunting  of  St.  Hubert  painted  in  the  background,  rather  a gay 
scene.  Mostaert  painted  a separate  picture  of  that  subject  in  a 
landscape  which  adorned  the  Prinsenhof  at  Haarlem  till  after  the 
middle  of  the  eighteenth  century.  It  may  be  represented  by  a 
picture  at  Munich. 

Not  much  later  than  these  is  a portrait  of  a man  which  was 
in  the  Hoech  Collection  (Sale,  1892).  For  once  he  does  not  wear 
gloves  ; his  cloak  is  of  the  same  style  as  the  preceding,  and  his 
hat  of  the  fashionable  type.  The  figure  here  is  on  a larger  relative 
scale,  and  the  landscape  correspondingly  less  important.  It  is  of 
an  unusual  type  for  the  Netherlands — hills  on  one  side  drooping 
to  low  headlands  jutting  out  into  a lagoon  on  the  other — a Durer 
type.  The  head  is  supreme  over  the  figure  and  the  figure  over  the 
background,  statements  which  would  not  be  true  of  any  earlier 
portrait  by  Mostaert.  The  man  portrayed  is  not  an  interesting 
personality — a material,  self-indulgent,  good-natured  man  perhaps, 
but  not  one  to  set  the  world  on  fire  or  form  the  efficient  centre 
of  even  a small  human  society. 

In  the  Begijnhof  at  Amsterdam  is  a portrait  of  the  preacher 
Nicholas  Cannius,  dated  1534.*  The  face  is  grave  and  ill-shaven, 
the  nose  very  large.  “ Nasum  habet  longum,”  wrote  Erasmus  of 
this  particular  organ.  The  eyes  are  small,  the  hair  dark,  the  hands 
ill-drawn,  the  landscape  hard.  The  style  is  that  of  Mostaert, 
but  not  the  execution.  It  seems  to  be  the  work  of  an  Amsterdam 
follower,  to  whom  is  also  ascribed  another  portrait  dated  1545  in 
the  Haarlem  Museum  (No.  343).  If  these  be  excluded,*  all  known 
portraits  by  Mostaert  might  have  been  painted  at  Haarlem,  except 
those  of  the  two  princes,  which  date  before  1506.  His  sitters  were 
evidently  persons  in  high  life  who  would  have  been  at  court  from 
time  to  time,  but  they  might  equally  have  had  frequent  occasion 

* Reproduced  in  W.  Martin’s  Altholldndische  Malerei,  ii. 

* Other  portraits  by  Mostaert  are  in  the  Depot  of  the  Berlin  Gallery,  and  one  that 
passed  through  Lepke’s  sale-room.  There  is  also  at  Copenhagen  a copy  by  him  of  an 
earlier  portrait  of  Jacquelin  de  Baviere,  perhaps  by  Van  Eyck. 


WAS  HE  MOSTAERT? 


447 


to  visit  Haarlem,  a local  centre  of  government.  Their  likenesses 
afford  no  proof  that  Mostaert,  if  the  painter  was  indeed  he,  occupied 
an  official  court  position  at  any  time  after  the  year  1506,  or  indeed 
at  all.  The  fact  that  Jan  Mostaert  certainly  lived  till  1556, 
while  the  group  of  pictures  now  attributed  to  him  were  all  painted 
before  1522,  or  at  very  latest  1530,  leaves  on  my  mind  an  uncom- 
fortable suspicion  that  the  whole  truth  has  not  yet  been  dis- 
covered. Perhaps  the  painter  of  all  these  pictures  may  not  have 
been  Jan  Mostaert  after  all. 


CHAPTER  XXX 


CORNELIS  ENGEBRECHTSEN  AND  JACOB  VAN  OOSTSANEN 

CoRNELis  Engebrechtsen,  who  may  be  regarded  as  the  first 
prominent  painter  of  the  Leyden  School,  was  born  in  that  town  in 
1468,  and  was  thus  a younger  contemporary  of  Gerard  David  and 
the  predecessor  by  some  years  of  Jacob  van  Oostsanen.  In  some 
of  David’s  pictures  a common  factor  can  be  discovered  linking  the 
origins  of  the  style  of  the  two  men.  Thus,  if  the  reader  will  com- 
pare Engebrechtsen’s  Christ  with  Prophets  and  Saints  which  is  in 
the  Flersheim  Collection  with  David’s  Christ  at  Dublin  he  will  find 
conspicuous  points  of  resemblance.  The  Christ  in  both  is  of  the 
Dutch  type,  the  type  employed  by  the  Master  of  Alkmaar,  but  by 
David  and  Cornelis  more  solidly  modelled  and  more  fully  realized 
in  a human  sense.  Our  artist  came  of  a good  family,  as  is  proved 
by  the  fact  that  from  1499  to  1519  he  was  on  the  list  of  Leyden 
Arquebusiers,  a company  to  which  only  members  of  the  upper 
class  of  the  town  were  admitted.  Nothing  is  known  about  his 
education,  and  as  we  possess  no  identified  body  of  Leyden  paintings 
done  before  his  time  we  have  no  means  of  learning  whether  his 
master  can  have  been  of  the  locality.  Hugo  Jacobsz,  Lucas  van 
Leyden’s  father,  was  a good  artist  there  resident  in  1480,  and 
probably  earlier.  Cornelis  might  have  been  his  pupil.  Haarlem  was 
not  far  away,  where  Geertgen  was  leaving  so  strong  a mark 
when  Engebrechtsen  was  young,  but  though  the  latter’s  Leyden 
Crueifixion  of  about  1510  shows  a school  affiliation  to  such  pictures 
as  the  Dutch  Crucifixions  at  Cologne  and  in  the  Glitza  Collection, 
a direct  dependence  is  not  to  be  observed. 

Internal  evidence  suggests  that  Cornelis  was  impregnated  with 
Antwerp  traditions  at  an  early  stage  of  his  career.  The  tempta- 
tion is  strong  to  identify  him  with  that  Cornelis  of  Holland  whose 
name  appears  in  the  books  of  the  Antwerp  Guild  in  1492  ; this 


EARLY  WORKS 


449 


identification,  however,  is  far  from  proved.  It  is  curious  that  he 
did  not  graduate  in  the  Leyden  Guild  till  as  late  as  1514,  in  the 
same  year  as  his  brilliant  pupil,  Lucas  van  Leyden,  and  some 
years  after  he  had  supplied  to  the  neighbouring  Nunnery  of  Marien- 
poel  the  great  Crucifixion  triptych  (of  about  1510)  now  preserved 
with  honour  in  the  Leyden  Laekenhal. 

Though  upward  of  thirty  pictures  are  now  with  a general 
consensus  of  agreement  ascribed  to  Engebrechtsen — the  list  will 
be  found  in  Thieme’s  Lexicon —\\tl\e  has  been  done  to  arrange 
them  in  chronological  order  or  to  trace  the  lines  of  the  painter’s 
development.  One  gets,  moreover,  from  an  examination  of  the 
whole  group  assigned  to  him,  the  uncomfortable  impression  that  it 
is  not  entirely  homogeneous.  In  the  present  study  I have  accepted 
in  the  main  the  conclusions  of  my  predecessors,  though  in  several 
instances  that  acceptance  is  half-hearted. 

At  Antwerp  (No.  352)  is  a painful  picture  of  Christ  seated  by  the 
Cross  awaiting  Crucifixion.  It  was  painted  for  a nun  of  Marienpoel 
Abbey,  near  Leyden,  an  institution  for  which  in  after  years  Enge- 
brechtsen was  several  times  employed.  It  must  be  one  of  his 
earliest  pictures  and  shows  him  equipped  by  purely  local  teaching. 
For  the  donoress,  St.  Augustin,  and  the  Maries  the  young  artist 
had  ample  precedent,  but  he  had  to  design  the  executioners  himself, 
evidently  without  help  from  models,  and  he  made  rather  a sorry 
business  of  it.  The  man  drilling  a hole  may  be  a dim  echo  of  a 
well-known  figure  by  Diirer.  The  drawing  of  all  three  figures  is 
bad,  and  the  proportion  of  heads  to  bodies  and  of  other  parts  to 
one  another  is  casual.  The  Descent  from  the  Cross,  which  is  or 
was  in  Kleinberger’s  hands, ^ is  cited  as  an  early  work.  A consider- 
able interval  must  separate  it  from  the  preceding.  Here  the 
artist  is  in  possession  of  more  ample  resources,  and  if  he  has  not 
been  studying  in  some  art-centre  of  the  South  Netherlands  he  must 
have  had  plentiful  opportunity  of  examining  works  of  the  Southern 
School.  The  composition  is  not  wholly  traditional,  though  neces- 
sarily on  traditional  lines.  An  Antwerp  Magdalen  kneels  in  the 
foreground,  and  the  fashion  of  her  sleeves  indicates  a date  not  long 

^ Reproduced  in  Les  Arts,  1912,  p.  146,  and  Onze  Kunst,  December  1913.  I am  unable 
to  illustrate  it,  as  my  letter  to  Messrs.  Kleinberger  requesting  permission  so  to  do  never 
received  any  answer  from  them. 


450 


CORNELIS  ENGEBRECHTSEN 


before  1510.  Both  she  and  St.  Barbara,  with  the  peacock  feather, 
are  graceful  and  expensively  dressed  figures ; Barbara’s  sleeves 
are  lined  with  that  ribbed  material  so  often  introduced  by  Jacob 
van  Oostsanen.  The  picture  is  painted  with  a certain  fluid  ease, 
notable  particularly  in  the  rendering  of  tree  foliage. 

The  meeting  of  Abraham  and  a feeble  Melchisedec,  in  the 
Auspitz  Collection,  includes  the  figure  of  a man  on  horseback 
“ lifted  ” — horse,  man,  and  armour — ^from  Burgkmair’s  St.  George 
woodcut  (B.  28)  of  1508,  which  fixes  an  upper  limit  for  the  picture’s 
date.  It  is  immature  work,  the  composition  crowded  and  confused. 
The  pose  of  the  page  standing  near  the  said  horseman  has  been 
correctly  identified  as  borrowed  from  a figure  in  Ouwater’s  Lazarus, 
and  the  men  on  the  right  are  not,  I suspect,  wholly  of  our  artist’s 
invention.  He  was  in  the  striving  stage,  reaching  out  for  help  in 
all  directions,  and  ambitiously  struggling  with  a composition  too 
elaborate  for  his  powers.  A little  vista  of  river-bank  where  cargo 
is  lying  about  does  not  suffice  to  dissipate  the  sense  of  confinement 
produced  by  the  huddled  mass  of  men,  rocks,  tents,  and  mountains 
which  overcrowds  more  than  half  the  panel. 

The  great  altar-piece  now  at  Leyden  was  painted  by  Enge- 
brechtsen  in  the  years  surrounding  1510  for  the  Regent  of  Marien- 
poel  Nunnery  and  other  donors  connected  with  that  convent.  It 
is  a work  deservedly  prized  and  shows  the  master  at  length  equipped. 
The  main  panel  depicts  the  Crucifixion,  flanked  on  the  wings  by 
the  Brazen  Serpent  and  Abraham’s  Sacrifice.  On  the  outsides  are 
painful  incidents  immediately  preceding  the  nailing  of  Christ  to  the 
Cross.  One  of  them  repeats  the  subject  of  the  early  picture  above 
described,  but  with  a developed  power  of  which  the  former  gave 
little  promise.  The  same  elements  are  there,  but  how  differently 
arranged  and  realized ! Let  the  reader  make  the  comparison 
for  himself.  The  artist  has  devoted  equal  attention  to  the 
composition  of  all  five  panels,  and  has  relegated  the  donors  to 
that  unusual  Northern  feature,  a predella,  where,  between  them, 
the  Tree  of  Life  (of  which,  according  to  the  legend,  the  Cross  was 
fashioned)  is  seen  growing  out  of  the  body  of  Adam.  The  story 
goes  that  the  angel  watching  the  gates  of  Paradise  gave  seeds  of 
the  tree  to  Seth,  who  planted  them  in  the  corpse  of  his  father.  The 
portraits  are  admirable  and  make  us  regret  that  so  few,  if  any, 


THE  LEYDEN  CRUCIFIXION 


451 


formal  portraits  by  Cornelis  have  survived,  or,  at  least,  been 
recognized.  ‘ 

In  the  Crucifixion  the  form  of  the  panel  so  raises  the  crucified 
figure  into  a lobe  aloft  that  the  attendant  personages  below  attract 
the  spectator’s  main  attention.  The  landscape  is  not  piled  up  as 
high  as  usual  with  Dutch  painters  of  the  day,  and  the  groups, 
arranged  circle-wise  with  a gap  in  the  centre,  open  a vista  to  the  tree- 
surrounded  city  in  the  background,  while  elevated  rocks  on  either 
side  support  subsidiary  figures  and  enframe  the  main  assemblage. 
It  is  a clever  and  original  treatment.  Some  of  the  chief  figures^ 
notably  a man  on  the  right  who  turns  his  back  on  us,  are  admirably 
drawn.  The  heads  are  remarkable  and  painted  with  great  care. 
The  Maries  wear  fine  Antwerp  clothes — a necessity  for  any  up-to- 
date  painter.  The  wing  compositions  are  piled  up,  incident  above 
incident.  They  are  wrought  out  with  equal  pains  and  contain 
figures  among  the  best  ever  produced  by  Cornelis. 

A dog  in  the  foreground  of  the  Crucifixion  is  borrowed  from 
Diirer’s  St.  Eustace,  and  I believe  that  Beets  has  traced  other 
Diirer  elements  in  the  work.  A more  important  instance  of  borrowing 
from  the  great  Nuremberg  master  is  the  Mordecai  and  Haman  in 
the  Northbrook  Collection.  An  engraving  of  the  same  subject  by 
Lucas  van  Leyden,  dated  1515,  was  approximately  contemporary, 
and  both  laid  under  contribution  Diirer’s  engraving  of  the  Knight 
and  Death  of  1513.  Engebrechtsen  intended  his  architectural 
background  to  be  of  a fashionable  Renaissance  character,  but  did 
not  draw  it  well ; moreover,  the  head  of  the  rider  is  ill-proportioned 
and  ill-foreshortened.  The  mass  of  feathers  disturbs  the  balance, 
notwithstanding  the  exaggerated  size  of  the  helmet,  and  the 
picture,  though  gaily  and  decoratively  painted,  contains  many 
imperfections.  It  falls  below  the  Leyden  Crucifixion  in  technical 
merit. 

Van  Mander  preserves  record  of  a triptych  in  which  the  central 
panel  contained  an  Apocalyptic  scene — the  Mystical  Lamb  opening 
the  Book  with  Seven  Seals — and  he  names  the  donors.  The  central 
panel  has  disappeared,  but  the  wings  survive  in  the  Limburg-Stirum 
Collection  at  Noordwijk.  A Last  Judgment  apparently  of  striking 
character,  to  judge  from  a very  small  reproduction,  is  at  Detroit, 

1 At  Nuremberg  (No.  40)  is  a portrait  of  a man  attributed  to  him. 


452 


CORNELIS  ENGEBRECHTSEN 


and  is  attributed  by  Bredius  to  Cornelis,  but  this  can  hardly  be  the 
lost  central  panel.  The  architecture  on  the  wings  at  Noordwijk 
is  fantastic,  with  cherubs  aloft  on  cornices,  but  if  the  main  forms 
are  trabeated  the  details  are  Gothic.  The  strong  parallel  curvos 
of  the  donoresses’  cloaks  will  be  noted  as  an  emphatic  and  intended 
element  of  the  design.  Beets  attributes  this  picture  to  a date 
soon  after  1515  and  not,  as  was  previously  asserted,  to  about  1509. 

We  may  here,  perhaps,  introduce  a Crucifixion  from  the  Kaufmann 
Collection  which  differs  widely  in  style  from  the  general  run  of 
Engebrechtsen’s  works  and,  if  really  by  him,  gives  further  evidence 
of  Antwerp  study,  the  Magdalen  at  the  foot  of  the  Cross  being 
borrowed  from  Quentin  Massys.  Some  of  the  attendant  saints 
are  of  Bruges  character.  The  women  have  gone  to  Antwerp  for 
their  head-dresses  and  costumes,  but  the  landscape  is  in  the  best 
manner  of  our  artist.  A similar  picture  with  fewer  saints  is  at 
Amsterdam  (No.  905)  ; Friedlander  calls  it  one  of  the  artist’s 
best  works.  Another  Crucifixion  in  the  Burckhardt  Collection  at 
Basle  is  fixed  to  this  period  (about  1515)  by  the  appearance  of  the 
Mordecai  again,  though  now  in  a different  character,  riding  away 
in  the  background.  This  picture  also  varies  rather  markedly 
from  such  thoroughly  authentic  works  as  the  two  great  Leyden 
altar-pieces,  and  at  the  same  time  does  not  sensibly  approximate 
to  the  Kaufmann  Crucifixion.  The  drawing  is  indifferent.  Many 
of  the  faces  are  badly  foreshortened  and  in  the  nature  of  caricatures ; 
figures  are  attenuated.  The  head-dresses  of  the  women  are 
obtrusively  decorated.  Allowance  must  be  made  for  the  unfortu- 
nate enterprise  of  some  restorer  who  faked  together  into  a single 
panel  the  centre  and  wings  of  what  was  designed  as  a triptych. 
As  a consequence,  the  grouping  appears  worse  than  in  fact  it  is. 
So  radical  a change  of  artistic  ideal  implies  the  intrusion  of  some 
powerful  influence,  which  can  be  none  other  than  that  of  Antwerp 
Mannerism,  but  Cornelis  seems  only  to  have  yielded  to  it  during  a 
passing  phase.  Some  trace  of  Mannerism  is  likewise  visible  in 
the  pompous  strut  ^ of  Abraham  in  the  picture  where,  with  mean 

1 Compare  the  similar  Manneristic  pose  of  two  Passion  saints  on  wings  which  were 
in  the  Fetis  sale  (1909),  No.  6,  and  sold  again  at  Lepke’s  (April  1911),  No.  79.  They 
were,  of  course,  attributed  to  Bles,  but  are  closely  related  to  Engebrechtsen.  Such  a 
strutting  leg  will  be  found  on  the  Magi  in  Buckingham  Palace,  attributed  by  Hulin  to 
Goswin. 


HIS  MIDDLE  PERIOD 


453 


cowardice,  he  is  leading  Hagar  and  Ishmael  out  into  the  wilderness 
to  perish  or  not,  as  the  gods  might  arrange.  That  belonged  to  the 
late  Dr,  Lippmann  and  is  an  attractive  work.  The  figures  are 
projeeted  against  a decorative  background  of  buildings  and  trees, 
and  a touch  of  humour  is  added  to  the  middle  distance  where  Ishmael 
gives  the  prostrate  Isaac  a sound  hiding. 

To  a slightly  later  period  we  may  perhaps  attribute  the  Amster- 
dam Christ  in  the  House  of  Simon  (No.  905a),  to  which  the  fine 
and  dignified  Crucifixion  at  New  York  is  linked  by  the  figure  of 
St.  Margaret,  drawn  from  the  same  model  as  a woman  in  the  former. 
Both  are  examples  of  the  painter’s  mature  style  when  he  had  shaken 
himself  free  of  Mannerism.  The  New  York  picture  is  the  most 
dignified  and  impressive  representation  of  the  great  Christian 
tragedy  that  has  come  down  to  us  from  this  period  and  school. 
The  figures  are  few  in  number,  only  the  three  crucified  with  the 
Virgin  and  St.  John,  if  the  donors  and  their  saints  are  left  out  of 
account.  The  silhouette  of  the  Virgin  is  expressive,  and  St.  John 
is  a new  and  independent  creation.  The  design  is  admirable 
throughout,  spacious,  with  an  aspect  of  simplicity  and  an  attained 
harmony  of  mass  and  line  exceedingly  rare  at  this  period  in  the 
North.  It  was  a Dutch  habit  to  bring  the  donors  well  to  the  front 
and  make  their  portraits  prominent.  They  and  their  stools,  instead 
of  being  modestly  placed  in  corners  or  on  wings,  are  frequently, 
especially  by  Mostaert,  brought  almost  to  the  centre  of  the  com- 
position, so  that  man  and  wife  seem  to  be  praying  to  one  another, 
while  the  sacred  event  of  their  supposed  contemplation  appears 
as  a relatively  insignificant  background  incident.^  Engebrechtsen 
has  here  been  bound  by  local  tradition  to  put  his  donors  in  the 
place  they  perhaps  considered  their  right,  but  with  great  skill  he 
has  nevertheless  subordinated  them  so  that  though  they  are  most 
in  the  foreground  they  are  the  last  figures  on  which  the  eye  rests. 

We  thus  arrive  at  Cornelis’  second  great  triptych  at  Leyden, 
which  was  painted  about  1520,  likewise  for  the  Marienpoel  Convent. 
The  subject  of  the  central  panel  is  a Mourning  over  the  Body  of 
Christ,  and  again  the  artist  has  devoted  all  his  powers  to  the  attain- 
ment of  the  best  result  possible  to  him.  The  composition  is  not 

1 A tjTpical  example  of  this  arrangement  may  be  seen  in  a St.  Anne  with  donors  of 
the  Van  Zuylen  family,  exliibited  at  Utrecht  in  1894  (No.  314). 


454 


CORNELIS  ENGEBRECHTSEN 


overcrowded ; the  female  figures,  perhaps  because  they  were 
intended  for  the  contemplation  of  nuns,  are  not  overdressed.  Some 
unnatural  fluttering  of  drapery  is  a Manneristic  tradition.  Emotion 
is  fairly  well  expressed,  but  the  concentrated  and  silent  passion  of 
the  New  York  picture  is  absent.  The  inter-relation  of  individuals 
to  one  another  is  logical.  If  one  speaks  another  listens,  as  is  by 
no  means  always  the  case  in  subjects  of  this  kind.  The  saints  and 
donors  on  the  wings  are  the  more  effective  for  their  simplicity 
of  pose  and  slight  tendency  to  archaism.  The  long  sweeping  curve 
of  the  lady’s  hood  cannot  fail  to  remind  us  of  similar  forms  on 
the  Noordwijk  wings.  The  finest  part  of  the  whole  is  the  outside 
of  the  shutters,  which  bear  four  monumental  figures  of  female 
saints  painted  almost  in  monochrome,  one  of  Engebrechtsen’s 
best  designs.  Agatha  is  best,  though  all  are  good.  The  faces 
are  interesting,  even  beautiful ; the  bearing  is  dignified,  without 
pretence  or  self-consciousness  ; the  few  enriched  details  are  in 
good  taste,  and  the  large  curves  and  planes  of  the  drapery  content 
an  eye  tired  with  the  fussy  multitudinousness  of  the  usual  pre- 
tentious altar-piece  of  the  day.  If  this  simplification,  which  we 
have  watched  proceeding,  resulted  from  the  reaction  of  Lucas 
van  Leyden  upon  his  master,  Engebrechtsen  had  much  to  thank 
him  for. 

To  the  same  phase  belong  a pair  of  pleasing  roundels — one  at 
Budapest,  the  other  in  the  Edmond  de  Rothschild  Collection. 
Both  contain  two  half-length  figures  of  Saints  : St.  John  the 

Evangelist  and  St.  Mary  Magdalen  on  one,  SS.  Valerius  and 
Cecilia  on  the  other.  They  are  treated  almost  like  contemporary 
portraits,  with  the  exception  of  the  very  traditional  John.  The 
Magdalen  may  have  been  taken  from  the  model  used  by  Jacob 
van  Oostsanen  for  St.  Barbara.  It  looks  as  if  the  artist  had  chosen 
the  best-looking  models  he  could  find.  He  has  painted  them  with 
breadth  and  simplicity,  and  skilfully  fitted  them  into  the  space 
at  his  disposal. 

Y et  another  Crucifixion  triptych  is  in  the  Archiepiscopal 
Museum  at  Utrecht.  It  is  ascribed  to  about  1525,  and  thus  belongs 
to  Engebrechtsen’s  last  period.  It  shows  a great  falling  off  in 
emotional  appeal  and  a return  to  the  commonplace.  St.  Cecilia  of 
the  roundels  reappears  as  one  of  the  Maries.  The  Magdalen 


HIS  CRUCIFIXIONS 


455 


huddles  herself  awkwardly  about  the  stem  of  the  Cross.  Christ 
on  the  left  wing  is  badly  drawn,  and  on  the  right,  newly  risen,  lacks 
all  dignity  and  seems  to  be  feebly  imitated  from  an  anaemic  print 
by  Jacopo  de’  Barbari.  A lot  of  trouble  has  been  given  to  the 
decoration  of  the  frame,  and  the  result  is  not  worth  it.  The  roundels 
show  the  direction  in  which  Engebrechtsen  might  have  advanced. 
They  are  wholly  modern  in  spirit,  unconcerned  with  religious 
emotion  or  the  visions  of  saints.  They  are  far  from  being  the 
mere  equivalent  of  photographic  transcripts  of  nature.  They 
express  that  modern  interest  and  delight  in  actual  human  life 
which  was  to  replace  the  mediaeval  dream-world  as  subject  for 
artistic  treatment. 

From  one  artist  after  another  in  this  transition  period  we  learn 
the  same  lesson.  Their  work  shows  vitality  when  it  is  devoted 
to  portraiture  or  the  emotional  representation  of  living  people, 
their  homes,  their  surroundings,  even  their  revels.  Such  were  the 
subjects  artists  would  have  tended  to  treat  if  left  to  themselves, 
but  painters,  like  other  craftsmen,  work  for  employers  and  must 
paint  what  is  required  of  them.  The  well-to-do  folk  able  to  pay 
are  likely  in  any  period  of  transition  to  be  those  who  have  prospered 
under  the  old  regime,  who  occupy  posts  in  relation  to  it,  who  are 
therefore  imbued  with  old-fashioned  ideas,  and  that  the  more 
strongly  because  their  material  interests  are  bound  up  with  them. 
Though,  however,  they  cling  to  an  old  form  of  faith  by  force  of 
will,  the  fire  has  gone  out  of  it  even  for  them  and  has  been  replaced 
by  formalism.  Formalism  is  the  negation  of  art.  That  is  why 
these  horrible  Crucifixions,  Passion-scenes,  and  the  like  are  so 
wearisome.  They  were  painted  to  order  by  artists  who  would 
sooner  have  been  differently  employed,  and  the  time  and  thought 
devoted  to  them,  so  far  from  increasing  the  artist’s  powers,  were,  in 
fact,  drying  up  the  fountain  of  his  imagination. 

Engebrechtsen,  one  of  whose  sons  was  a glass-painter,  and  who 
lived  at  a time  when  small  painted  windows  were  becoming  popular 
as  house  decoration  in  the  Netherlands,  may  be  expected  to  have 
designed  some  such  works.  The  Berlin  Art- Industries  Museum 
claims  to  possess  examples  referable  to  him.'  Drawings  of  cir- 
cular form  of  this  date  are  generally  designs  for  painted  glass 
^ Nos.  109,  110.  See  H.  Schwaitz,  Die  Glasgemalde  d.  Kgwb.  Mus. 


456 


CORNELIS  ENGEBRECHTSEN 


medallions.  One  such  by  our  master  was  sold  at  Muller’s  (June 
1912).  Its  uncommon  subject  is  described  as  “a  General  falling 
on  his  sword  in  the  presence  of  his  judges.”  It  is  a washed  mono- 
chrome outlined  in  pen-and-ink  and  touched  with  white,  an 
example  of  a technique  similarly  employed  by  Lucas  van  Leyden 
in  his  youth. 

Engebrechtsen  was  not  merely  a good  painter  himself,  but  was 
important  as  a teacher.  His  sons,  Cornelis  (b.  1493,  ob.  1544)  and 
Lucas  (b.  1495,  ob.  1552),  were  his  pupils.  A third  son,  Peter,  the 
glass-painter,  seems  to  have  learned  from  someone  else.  Diilberg 
and  Beets  attribute  to  him  drawings  (at  Berlin,  Amsterdam,  and 
in  Coll.  Rodriguez)  and  glass-paintings,  signed  “ P.  C.”  and  dated 
between  1517  and  1522.  One  such  glass-painting  is  in  the  Louvre.^ 
Engebrechtsen  also  taught  Aert  Claesz  (called  Aertgen  van  Leyden)^ 
and  strongly  influenced,  if  he  did  not  actually  teach,  the  Cologne 
Master  of  St.  Severin  and  the  Master  of  Cappenburg,  but  his  most 
eminent  pupil  was  Lucas  van  Leyden.  We  shall  conclude  our 
study  of  the  Dutch  painters  with  an  examination  of  the  work  of 
the  last  named  ; but  before  undertaking  that  adventure  we  must 
attend  to  the  claims  of  another  Dutch  artist  of  less  eminence  who 
occupied  a position  of  some  importance  in  the  history  of  a great 
art-centre. 

Jacob  Corneliszoon  of  Oostsanen  was  called  Jacob  of  Amster- 
dam at  Antwerp.  He  signed  with  the  initials  “I.  A.”  and  a mark 
between  them  like  an  inverted  W with  a V interlaced.  This 
signature  was  also  employed  by  his  son,  Dirk  Jacobszoon,  and  his 
nephew,  Cornelis  Buys.  He  was  a member  of  that  artist  family, 
the  Buys,  to  whom  we  have  already  referred.  They  appear  to 
have  been  an  Alkmaar  stock,  but  Jacob’s  father,  Cornelis,  lived 
at  Oostsanen  and  Jacob  himself  was  born  there.  His  brother 
Cornelis  lived  and  painted  at  Alkmaar,  and  so  did  Cornelis’  son 
and  grandson,  who  bore  the  same  Christian  name.  Jacob  settled 
at  Amsterdam,  and  was  followed  there  by  his  two  sons,  Cornelis 
and  Dirk.  Neither  he  nor  they  seem  to  have  used  the  surname 

1 See  Oud-Holland,  1899,  p.  66,  and  Bull.  v.  d.  Nederl.  Oudheidk.  Bond,  1909,  p.  10, 
and  1911,  p.  246. 

^ On  two  drawings  attributable  to  this  master,  see  C.  Dodgson  in  the  Burlington 
Magazine,  January  1921,  p.  25  seq. 


JACOB  VAN  OOSTSANEN 


457 


Buys.'  In  the  present  chapter  I shall  call  him  Jacob  van  Oost- 
sanen.  The  date  of  his  birth  is  not  recorded,  but  his  portrait 
painted  in  1533,  the  year  of  his  death,  shows  a man  not  much, 
if  at  all,  over  50  years  of  age,  so  that  we  may  put  the  date  of  his 
birth  soon  after  1480.  He  was  thus  a dozen  years  younger  than 
Engebrechtsen.  Some  120  woodcuts,  marked  with  his  signature 
or  otherwise  identifiable,  have  long  been  known ; the  artist’s 
true  name  was  only  attached  to  them  less  than  forty  years  ago, 
and  the  identification  of  the  respectable  list  of  paintings  now  with 
some  confidence  attributed  to  him  has  been  gradually  accomplished 
by  the  co-operation  of  many  observers.  A list  will  be  found  in 
Thieme’s  Lexicon  and  the  usual  books  of  reference.  No  attempt 
will  be  made  in  the  present  chapter  to  notice  more  than  are  needed 
to  exemplify  his  powers  and  the  course  of  his  development. 

His  earliest  dated  picture  is  the  Noli  me  longer e at  Cassel  of 
1507,  and  his  earliest  dated  woodcut  is  of  the  same  year.  We 
know  nothing  of  his  upbringing  or  pupilage  ; as  far  as  dates  are 
concerned  he  might  have  been  Engebrechtsen’s  pupil.  The  Cassel 
picture  is  in  spirit  thoroughly  Gothic,  but  in  details  obviously  of 
its  day.  The  Magdalen  in  her  rich  attire  proclaims  the  influence 
of  Antwerp.  Christ’s  head  is  of  a type  resembling  that  employed 
by  the  Master  of  Alkmaar,  but  painted  in  greater  detail.  The 
landscape  is  advanced  in  style  and  the  treatment  of  foliage  is 
original.  Like  other  Dutchmen  of  his  day  he  devoted  much 
attention  to  the  trunks  of  his  trees.  Plants  in  the  foreground 
are  studied  carefully  from  nature  after  the  fashion,  but  without 
the  genius,  of  Durer.  The  whole  picture  is  full  of  detail  and  has 
an  aspect  of  high  finish.  If  it  lacks  the  charm  of  formal  beauty 
the  totality  of  the  effect  is  undeniably  decorative.  To  about 
the  same  date  we  may  refer  a Crucifixion  which  was  in  the  Ruffo 
de  Bonneval  sale  (No.  13). ^ It  is  a horrible  work,  containing  only 
six  figures  and  the  kneeling  donor — a Carthusian  monk.  It  lacks 
every  grace,  disgusts  with  emphatic  brutality,  and  prominently 
exemplifies  one  of  the  painter’s  weaknesses,  his  incapacity  to 
foreshorten  a face  when  seen  obliquely.  This  was  a failing  of  the 
Dutch  School,  which  neither  Engebrechtsen  nor  Lucas  van  Leyden 

' See  Prof.  J.  Six  in  Van  Kalcken’s  Peintures  Ecclesiastiques  du  moyen-age,  p.  9. 

2 Bruges  Exhibition  (1902),  No.  379. 


458 


JACOB  VAN  OOSTSANEN 


wholly  escaped.  The  Vienna  St.  Jerome  of  1511  is  a far  better 
picture,  but  we  may  pass  it  by  to  linger  a moment  over  the  elaborate 
Nativity  at  Naples  dated  in  the  following  year.  Jacob  could 
scarcely  have  painted  this  picture  without  any  Antwerp  teaching. 
If  the  foundation  of  his  art  was  Dutch,  as  we  shall  presently  have 
better  occasion  to  note,  it  had  acquired  a superficial  finish  in  an 
Antwerp  studio,  and  here  he  proposed  to  astonish  some  provincial 
patron  with  an  exhibition  of  all  his  borrowed  plumes  at  once. 
The  architecture  with  its  piers  panelled  with  arabesques,  the 
multitude  of  cherubs  superfluously  busy  everywhere,  the  costume 
and  plated  head-dress  of  St.  Margaret  in  the  very  latest  fashion, 
the  seascape  and  its  ships  bending  over  to  the  breeze,  these  and 
the  like  details  were  not  of  his  invention  ; they  were  picked  up 
from  here  and  there  and  crowded  round  the  square  Dutch  manger 
and  adoring  parents  which  alone  he  had  not  to  go  south  to  find. 
The  portraits  of  the  large  family  of  donors  are  not  bad,  neither 
are  they  remarkable.  In  fine  it  is  an  overburdened  and  unsatis- 
factory painting  by  a laborious  and  ambitious  craftsman.  Yet 
when  the  worst  is  said  the  picture  possesses  a decorative  quality 
which  is  praiseworthy,  and  one  cannot  but  be  impressed  by  the 
almost  riotous  energy  of  the  crowd  of  personages  human  and  divine 
that  gather  about  so  tiny  an  infant.  A slightly  later  and  more 
disciplined  version  of  the  same  composition  was  (in  1916)  in  the 
hands  of  the  Spanish  Gallery,  London.  The  cherubs  in  it  are 
better  drawn,  and  the  composition  is  better  balanced,  while  the 
three  central  figures  are  substantially  the  same.  The  execution 
is  no  less  careful,  and  the  greater  concentration  of  the  design  en- 
hances its  effectiveness.  Yet  a third  Nativity  of  like  character, 
but  later,  is  on  a wing  panel  of  some  dismembered  altar-piece.  It 
is  now  at  Basle. ‘ Other  versions  exist. 

Three  Crucifixions,  dating  from  about  1515,  are  of  the  usual 
populous  type.  They  are  in  the  Amsterdam  (No.  723),  Barnard 
Castle  (No.  174),  and  J.  G.  Johnson  (No.  409)  Galleries.  A com- 
parison between  them  and  the  Crucifixions  by  the  Amsterdam  Lucia 
Master  in  the  Museums  at  Utrecht  and  Amsterdam  (No.  915a) 
shows  a direct  affiliation,  which  a detailed  examination  reveals 
as  affecting  not  merely  the  general  design  but  particular  and 

1 From  the  Wurster  sale,  Cologne  (1896),  No.  63.  On  the  back  are  two  saints. 


PLATE  XX Hi 


:i.  JACOB  VAN  OOSTSANEN.  SPANISH 
GAEEEKY.— p.  458. 


1.  THE  :\IASTER  OF  ALKMAAR.  BUDAPEST 
MUSEUM.— p.  433. 


[To  lace  paqo  458. 


ENGEUHECHTSEN. 


HIS  DERIVATION 


459 


individual  forms.  Who  the  Lucia  Master  was  we  know  not,  but 
he  may  have  been  settled  at  Amsterdam  and  Jacob  may  have 
been  and  probably  was  his  pupil.  Our  present  knowledge  yields 
no  more  precise  conclusion.  A dated  triptych  at  Antwerp  of  this 
very  year  1515  is  evidence  of  an  advance  in  artistic  understanding. 
The  copies  of  Diirer’s  Adam  and  Eve  on  the  outsides  of  the  wings 
lead  us  to  expect,  what  on  opening  them  is  confirmed,  that  Jacob 
had  been  studying  Diirer’s  engravings.  The  cherubs  in  the  fore- 
ground of  the  half-length  Virgin  have  travelled  from  Venice  to 
Amsterdam  by  way  of  Nuremberg.  The  artist  has  begun  to  learn 
the  value  of  reserve.  The  portraits  of  the  donors  are  among  the 
best  Jacob  ever  painted,  and  St.  Sebastian  behind  the  husband 
is  a charming  and  graceful  figure,  one  of  the  best  on  any  Dutch 
picture  of  that  date.  It  is  not,  however,  independent  of  Lucas 
van  Leyden. 

An  Adoration  of  the  Magi  of  1517  in  the  Wied  Collection,  which 
was  repeated  in  the  example  of  1520  at  Kaufmann’s  and  again 
in  a copy  dated  1536,  last  seen  in  the  De  Somzee  sale  (No.  594), 
must  have  achieved  a not  undeserved  popularity.  In  design  it 
is  reminiscent  of  Antwerp,  but  the  types  are  Dutch.  Again,  we 
have  a fragment  of  architecture  intended  to  be  of  Renaissance 
character,  but  the  picture  is  devoid  of  true  Renaissance  feeling. 
In  spirit  Jacob  van  Oostsanen  remained  Gothic,  and  pursued  a 
normal  course  without  spiritual  divergence  into  the  new  world, 
which  he  never  really  discovered.  It  takes  more  than  a pilaster 
and  an  architrave  to  alter  the  essential  quality  of  a design. 

The  half-length  Madonna  triptych  of  1515  must  have  been  a 
success,  for  Jacob  painted  another  (Berlin,  No.  607)  of  like  type 
about  three  years  later  for  Augustin  van  Teylingen  and  his  wife. 
A third  is  in  the  collection  of  Sir  William  H.  Bennett.  ‘ These 
three  triptychs  are  Jacob’s  best  works.  The  music-making  cherubs 
in  the  Berlin  example  are  even  harder  at  work  with  distended 
cheeks,  but  they  are  less  prominent  and  less  Diireresque  than  at 
Antwerp.  The  landscape  is  full  of  incident  and  detail  after  Mos- 
taert’s  fashion.  On  the  wife’s  wing  is  a lady  saint,  carefully  dressed, 
holding  a peacock’s  feather  in  her  hand  ; she  reappears  with  the 

^ National  Loan  Exhibition,  London,  1913-14,  No.  43,  reproduced  in  the  illustrated 
catalogue. 


460 


JACOB  VAN  OOSTSANEN 


same  feather  and  painted  from  the  same  model,  but  differently 
dressed,  on  a wing  which  was  in  the  Rohrer  Collection.  ^ In  both 
cases  she  is  St.  Barbara,  not,  as  generally  stated,  St.  Catherine. 
St.  Barbara  also  carries  a peacock’s  feather  on  one  of  a pair  of 
wings  at  Pisa  of  the  school  of  Cornells  Engebrechtsen.  I have 
no  idea  what  the  feather  means.  An  ostrich  plume  is  similarly 
held  by  St.  Barbara  in  the  Lisbon  Mannerist  triptych,  and  in  one 
or  two  other  paintings  of  the  Antwerp  Mannerist  type,  and  it  may 
have  been  from  that  master  that  the  Dutch  artists  borrowed  the 
emblem.  It  was  also  used  in  the  Cologne  School.  A Magdalen 
drawn  from  the  same  model  at  approximately  the  same  date  finds 
place  on  a Pieta,  only  known  from  an  indifferent  copy  in  the 
Archiepiscopal  Museum  at  Utrecht.^ 

A pair  of  roundels  in  the  Carrand  Collection  (Nos.  22,  23)  at 
Florence  have  been  variously  ascribed  to  Mostaert,  Engebrechtsen, 
and  Jacob ; they  fit  the  last-named  best.  They  are  brightly 
decorative  works  of  no  great  merit.  With  the  year  1523  we  reach 
an  important  dated  picture  by  our  artist ; it  is  the  All  Saints 
triptych  at  Cassel — a composition  stretching  across  the  three 
panels  and  thronged  with  figures,  those  in  front  waist-deep  in  clouds. 
We  can  easily  identify  among  them  Adam  and  Eve,  Abraham  and 
Isaac,  Moses  and  Aaron,  Joshua  with  the  embroidered  sun  “ stand- 
ing still  ” in  the  middle  of  his  back,  David  with  his  harp,  and  the 
Apostles  further  round,  while  the  circling  host  thickens  and  multi- 
plies behind  on  either  hand.  The  Trinity  are  the  least  impressive 
figures.  I discover  more  than  a chance  connexion  between  this 
composition  and  that  of  the  Buckingham  Palace  triptych  called  of 
the  school  of  Hugo  van  der  Goes,  but  as  we  do  not  know  by  whom, 
when,  or  where  that  picture  was  painted,  the  coincidence  does 
not  enrich  our  knowledge  of  the  life-story  of  Jacob  van  Oostsanen. 
It  is  probable  that  he  had  been  away  from  home  once  more,  perhaps 
again  at  Antwerp,  and  had  endeavoured  to  throw  himself  into  the 
current  artistic  movement.  Only  a new  outside  influence  could 
have  provoked  the  composition  of  the  Hague  Salome,  a small 
life-size  half-length  under  a round  arch  rising  from  awkwardly 
corniced  piers  in  bad  perspective,  with  the  angles  of  the  piers  cham- 

1 Monatshefte  f.  K.,  iii,  pt.  4,  with  reproduction. 

2 Phot,  in  Dulberg’s  Fruhholldnder. 


HIS  PORTRAITS 


461 


fered  off  in  Gothic  fashion.  The  horrible  head  of  St.  John  is  badly 
foreshortened  and  his  bloody  neek  turned  with  brutal  ill-taste 
toward  the  speetator.  The  simplicity  of  drapery  and  pose  is  a 
faint  refieetion  of  the  new  ideal,  but  Jaeob  was  not  a good  enough 
draughtsman  to  suceeed  with  such  a design.  The  Witch  of  Endor 
(Amsterdam,  No.  722)  of  1526  and  a triptyeh  at  Stuttgart  of  1530 
are  his  latest  dated  religious  pictures,  and  do  not  alter  the  impression 
whieh  the  foregoing  have  left  upon  us,  nor  should  we  gain  much 
by  the  diseussion  of  half  a dozen  other  works  that  have  been  passed 
over.  Jacob  van  Oostsanen  was  not  a creative  artist  of  importance. 
He  possessed  a eertain  decorative  sense  and  sometimes  employed 
it  with  happy  results.  He  used  clear  bright  eolours  and  made  a 
cheerful  mosaic  with  them,  but  his  subjeets  seldom  arrest  attention ; 
as  he  approaches  the  dramatic  he  attains  the  brutal. 

Jaeob,  like  every  painter  of  any  importance  in  his  day,  was  also 
employed  to  make  portraits.  If  the  likeness  of  Edzard  I,  Duke 
of  East  Friesland  (ob.  1526),  in  the  Oldenburg  Gallery  is  really  by 
him  it  is  his  best  work  in  that  kind.  Other  versions  of  it  are  at 
Dijon  and  in  the  possession  of  the  Duke  of  Rutland. ^ The  original 
has  also  been  ascribed  to  Lucas  van  Leyden.  If  Jacob  painted 
it  he  did  so  under  the  influenee  of  Lucas.  A bust  portrait  of  some 
artist  by  himself  belonging  to  Lord  Beauehamp  ® has  also  been 
brought  into  relation  with  Jacob,  but  unconvincingly.  It  comes 
nearer  to  Mostaert,  but  is  more  vivid  than  any  other  Dutch  portrait 
of  the  time  known  to  me — if  Dutch  it  be.  A genuine  pair  are  the 
half-length  portraits  at  Rotterdam  of  the  same  Van  Teylingens 
w’hom  w^e  met  on  the  wings  of  the  Berlin  Madonna.  Though  the 
frames  bear  the  refreshed  date  1511  the  correet  year  should  evidently 
be  1521,  as  is  proved  by  the  costumes;  nor  is  it  only  the  frames 
that  have  been  repainted.  Enough,  however,  remains  to  show  that 
originally  the  portraits  were  of  an  honest  uninspired  sort,  the 
husband’s  being  far  the  better.  A stout  man’s  bust  in  the  Cook 
Colleetion  may  be  by  our  artist  on  a happy  day.  This  time  he  has 
not  only  eaught  the  likeness  but  the  expression  of  a face  that  shows 
determination  and  strength  of  eharaeter  but  likewise  bears  the 

1 The  Dijon  picture  has  a landscape  background.  One  with  a plain  background  was 
sold  at  Heberle’s  (May  1900),  No.  12. 

2 Reproduced  by  the  Anmdel  Club. 

31 


462 


JACOB  VAN  OOSTSANEN 


traces  of  suffering.  The  head  looms  out  of  dark  surroundings,  and 
there  are  no  hands  or  background  details  to  withdraw  the  eye  from 
it.  So  keen  and  steady  is  the  man’s  gaze  that  the  spectator  feels 
himself  the  beheld  rather  than  the  beholder.  Unfortunately  for 
Jacob,  his  authorship  is  not  assured.  The  portrait  of  a man  in 
the  Harrach  Collection  at  Vienna,  which  may  be  dated  about  1520, 
is  no  great  matter,  but  that  is  not  wholly  the  artist’s  fault,  for  such 
a sitter  gave  him  little  opportunity.  It  would  take  an  artist  of 
genius  to  make  much  of  so  poor-looking  a creature. ^ 

Before  the  18th  of  October  1533  Jacob  was  dead.  The  bust 
portrait  of  himself  at  Amsterdam  (No.  721)  dated  in  that  year  must 
depict  him  in  the  last  months  of  his  life.  He  does  not  seem  old. 
His  face  is  more  interesting  than  his  works.  It  is  an  artist’s  face, 
but  with  a great  nose  out  of  harmony  with  the  rest  of  the  features. 
The  mouth  indicates  gentleness  rather  than  force,  and  he  looks  more 
wary  than  sly.  He  has  a patient  aspect,  and  seems  not  without 
humour — a very  respectable  citizen  and  family  man,  one  might 
suppose,  but  not  likely  to  make  a deep  impression  on  his  day 
and  generation, 

Friedlander  names  five  drawings  by  him  at  Berlin,  Dresden, 
Frankfurt,  and  in  a sale.  They  are  not  important.  As  a designer 
of  woodcuts  he  takes  higher  rank,  for  there  his  sense  of  decoration 
had  some  scope  and  he  distributed  his  blacks  and  whites  effectively. 
His  longest  series  of  cuts  was  a set,  eighty  in  number,  illustrative 
of  Old  and  New  Testament  subjects — one  of  those  sets  which  most 
Dutch  printers  owned  and  used  in  whole  or  part,  as  opportunity 
occurred,  in  religious  works  of  various  kinds.  He  also  designed  a 
Passion  and  a Life  of  Christ,  as  well  as  a set  of  Virtues  and  Vices 
and  another  of  the  Counts  and  Countesses  of  Holland.  These 
hardly  fall  within  the  purview  of  the  present  work.  I forgot  to 
mention  that  Jacob  was  Scorel’s  second  master,  from  about  1512. 
That  gifted  youth  probably  did  not  take  long  to  reach  the  limit 
of  what  the  master  could  teach  him.  On  the  look  out  for  more 
advanced  instruction  he  attached  himself  to  Mabuse,  with  the 
unsatisfactory  result  already  related.  It  is  hardly  likely  that  the 

^ Other  portraits  attributed  to  Jacob  van  Oostsanen  are  a pair  at  Brussels  (Nos. 
570,  571),  one  dated  1514  at  Antwerp  and  one  at  Utrecht.  Emil  Jacobsen  attributes 
to  him  one  at  Turin  (No.  319). 


HIS  DRAWINGS 


463 


investigations  of  the  future  will  do  much  to  raise  our  estimate  of 
Jacob  van  Oostsanen.  If  he  had  not  happened  to  be  the  first 
prominent  artist  to  work  at  Amsterdam  we  might  have  passed 
him  by  more  unceremoniously.  For  present  purposes  enough  has 
been  said  ; let  a more  sympathetic  biographer  treat  him  at  greater 
length.  I leave  him  with  the  suspicion  that  I have  hardly  done 
him  justice. 


CHAPTER  XXXI 


LUCAS  VAN  LEYDEN 

Lucas  van  Leyden  was  remembered  with  pride  in  his  native  city 
as  an  artist  who  had  been  what  nowadays,  in  the  case  of  musicians, 
we  call  a youthful  prodigy.  Van  Mander  visited  Leyden  only  some 
two-thirds  of  a century  after  the  death  of  Lucas  and  put  this  tradi- 
tion on  record  ; we  cannot,  therefore,  set  it  aside  as  valueless. 
He  further  stated  as  the  result  of  his  researches  that  Lucas  was 
born  in  the  last  days  of  May  or  the  first  of  June  in  the  year  1494. 
When,  however,  we  discover  that  some  of  his  best  work  was  done 
in  and  before  1510,  in  which  year  he  would  only  have  been  aged 
16,  and  that  several  of  his  engravings  of  conspicuous  merit  must 
date  back  a few  years  before  1508,  our  powers  of  acceptance 
are  considerably  strained.  We  ask  for  more  evidence  than  Van 
Mander’s  word  in  confirmation  or  disproof.  This  appears  to  be 
forthcoming  in  the  form  of  portraits,  two  of  them  securely  dated, 
the  third  claiming  to  show  him  at  the  age  of  15.  The  last  men- 
tioned is  a painting  at  Brunswick  ; the  other  two  are  drawings 
by  Diirer.  Unfortunately,  a mere  glance  shows  that  the  three 
likenesses  depict  three  different  people.  An  employer  who  would 
select  one  of  them  for  any  particular  job  would  be  sure  to  reject 
both  the  others,  so  different  are  their  obvious  dispositions  and 
qualities.  Yet  students,  lacking  for  the  most  part  in  knowledge 
of  men,  have  comfortably  accepted  all  three  likenesses  as  portraits 
of  Lucas  van  Leyden,  the  habit  of  relying  upon  the  written  word 
being  stronger  in  them  than  the  evidence  of  their  own  eyes. 

The  Brunswick  painting  is  authenticated  by  an  engraving  of 
it  by  Andreas  Stock.  It  is  accompanied  by  text  stating  that  it 
is  a portrait  of  Lucas,  painted  by  himself,  at  the  age  of  15,  or 
ex  hypothesi  in  the  second  half  of  1509  or  the  first  of  1510.  Diirer’s 
silver-point  drawing  at  Lille  is  supposed  to  be  the  one  mentioned 
in  his  diary  as  made  by  him  about  June  1521.  An  engraving  of 

464 


HIS  LIKENESS 


465 


it  by  Wierix  is  inscribed  as  made  after  the  likeness  of  Lucas  by 
Diirer.  The  third  is  a black  chalk  drawing  by  Diirer  in  the  British 
Museum  (Salting  bequest ; Lippmann,  No.  403).  There  is  an 
engraving  of  this  also  (in  reverse)  whieh  falsely  elaims  to  be  by 
Lueas  (B.  174).  It  is  signed  15  L 25,  and  inscribed  as  a likeness  of 
the  painter  by  himself.  Someone,  perhaps  the  engraver,  has 
mutilated  the  original  drawing  by  rubbing  out  Diirer’s  monogram 
and  the  date  1521  and  substituting  for  them  the  same  15  L 25 
whieh  appears  on  the  engraving.  An  examination  of  the  engraving 
reveals  weaknesses  whieh  suffiee  to  prove  that  it  was  not  the  work 
of  Lueas.  It  was  doubtless  believed  to  be  his  likeness  by  the  owner 
of  the  drawing  at  the  time  the  engraving . was  made,  and  sueh  old 
traditions  are  of  value. 

Lest  the  reader  should  doubt  my  assertion  that  the  three 
likenesses  are  of  different  men,  I will  proeeed  to  prove  it.  If 
we  mark  a line  joining  the  middle  of  the  eyes  at  a point  half-way 
between  them,  and  also  mark  the  root  of  the  nose  at  the  top  of  the 
upper  lip,  the  line  of  the  mouth,  and  the  tip  of  the  chin  in  each, 
we  thus  define  three  lengths  whieh  we  may  roughly  eall  the  lengths 
of  the  nose,  the  upper  lip,  and  the  ehin.  These  lengths  should 
bear  to  one  another  approximately  the  same  proportions  in  the 
three  likenesses  if  they  depiet  a single  individual.  Their  proportions 
are  as  follows  : 


Chin. 

Upper  lip. 

Nose. 

British  Museum  drawing  . 

100 

50*6 

116 

Brunswick  picture 

100 

60 

149 

Lille  drawing  . 

100 

55 

97 

Or  we  may  take  a yet  easier  eomparison  and  measure  the  pro- 
portionate relation  of  the  nose  (as  above  defined)  to  the  length  of 
the  rest  of  the  face  down  to  the  tip  of  the  ehin.  If  we  make  the 
latter  length  100,  the  proportionate  length  of  the  nose  in  each  of 
the  likenesses  is  as  follows  : 


British  Museum  drawing  . 

78 

Brunswiek  picture  . 

92 

Lille  drawing 

66 

It  is  therefore  impossible  that  any  two  of  these  likenesses  can 
represent  one  and  the  same  individual,  and  as  all  seem  to  be  about 


466 


LUCAS  VAN  LEYDEN 


equally  well  authenticated  we  cannot,  without  further  evidence, 
say  which,  if  any,  of  the  three  depicts  Lucas.  Internal  evidence, 
indeed,  rejects  the  Brunswick  picture.  This  scowling  cow-boy  of  a 
fellow  can  scarcely  have  been  an  artist.  His  gross  mouth  and 
weak  chin  seem  incompatible  with  the  determination  and  con- 
sistency of  endeavour  which  are  exemplified  so  strikingly  in  the  life 
and  accomplishment  of  Lucas ; but  the  two  men  drawn  by  Diirer 
might  be  artists. 

If  we  cast  an  eye  over  the  whole  existing  work  of  Lucas  in  search 
of  possible  portraits  of  the  painter  in  the  background,  the  most 
obvious  probability  adheres  to  the  visible  half-length  of  a man 
with  his  wife  beside  him,  lookers-on  at  a gambling  scene  in  Lord 
Pembroke’s  picture.  He  resembles  in  striking  fashion  the  chalk- 
drawn  portrait  by  Diirer  in  the  British  Museum.  Applying  to 
the  pictured  head  the  same  test  we  have  already  applied  to  the 
rest  we  get  exactly  the  same  proportions  as  those  of  the  London 
drawing,  and  the  observed  similarity  is  confirmed.  ‘ We  may 
therefore  assert  with  some  confidence  that  the  British  Museum 
drawing  and  Lord  Pembroke’s  picture  contain  portraits  of  Lucas 
van  Leyden,  and  the  former  may  be  dated  beyond  question  to 
the  year  1521.  If  Lucas  was  born  in  1494  he  was  27  years  old 
in  1521.  It  is,  I think,  evident  that  the  man  portrayed  is  older 
and  is  probably  nearer  35  than  30  years  of  age.  Dulberg  dates 
Lord  Pembroke’s  picture  to  about  1519,  but  Beets  would  put  it 

' The  reader  who  wishes  to  verify  the  experiment  should  proceed  as  follows  : Let 
him  provide  himself  with  a large  sheet  of  paper  and  set  up  a line  or  ordinate  at  right 
angles  to  the  bottom  edge  and  anywhere  about  a hand’s  length  to  the  right  of  the  bottom 
left-hand  corner.  Let  him  measure  off  along  this  ordinate  from  the  bottom  at  A upward 
a length  of  100  mm.  to  a point  we  shall  mark  B ; above  that  a length  of  50  mm.  to  C, 
and  above  that  one  of  116  mm.  to  D.  Let  him  now  draw  radii  from  the  bottom  left- 
hand  comer  to  the  points  B,  C,  D respectively.  Having  prepared  this  simple  diagram, 
let  him  take  a clean  piece  of  paper  with  a sharp  straight  edge,  and  applying  that  to  any 
good  photograph  of  the  drawing  (on  whatever  scale),  let  him  mark  with  a sharp  pencil 
the  distances  between  the  points  in  question  on  the  faee  and  let  him  proceed  similarly 
with  the  face  in  Lord  Pembroke’s  picture.  If  now  he  will  apply  the  papers  thus  marked 
to  his  diagram,  making  the  mark  corresponding  to  the  tip  of  the  chin  travel  along  the 
bottom  edge  of  his  diagram  from  left  to  right,  and  keeping  the  edge  of  his  travelling 
slip  vertical,  he  will  find  that  when  one  of  the  other  points  coincides  with  the  corresponding 
radius  all  will  coincide  with  theirs  respectively,  and  he  will  find  that  the  same  simul- 
taneous coincidence  will  occur  also  with  the  other.  But  if  he  makes  a similar  experiment 
with  the  LUle  and  Brunswick  likenesses  no  such  coincidence  will  take  place. 


HIS  LIFE 


467 


down  to  1530.  The  fashion  of  the  cap  worn  by  Lucas  in  it 
confirms  Dulberg’s  estimate  within  a few  years.  Picture  and 
drawing  must  be  approximately  of  one  date,  the  picture  perhaps 
the  later  of  the  two,  for  in  it  the  artist  looks  a little  older 
than  in  the  drawing.  Therefore,  I do  not  believe  that  Lucas  van 
Leyden  was  born  in  1494,  but  somewhere  about  and  rather  before 
1490.1 

The  facts  known  about  our  artist’s  life  may  be  stated  in  a few 
words.’*  His  father,  Hugo  Jacobszoon  of  Leyden,  was  also  a painter, 
said  to  have  been  of  merit.  He  is  mentioned  in  the  archives  as  a 
householder  in  1480.  He  was  doubtless,  therefore,  already 
married.  Pictures  by  him  probably  exist  unidentified  ; he  may 
be  one  of  the  early  Dutch  artists  known  to  us  only  by  invented 
nicknames.  His  son  Lucas  gave  early  proof  of  unusual  capacity 
and  industry.  He  is  said  to  have  engraved  a plate  when  only  9 
years  old,  and  three  years  later  to  have  painted  in  distemper  a 
St.  Hubert  which  was  much  admired.  His  earliest  dated  works 
in  engraving  and  woodcut  are  of  1508.  Existing  engravings 
ascribed  to  him  are  172  in  number,  and  form  the  bulk  of  his  surviving 
output.  He  also  designed  many  remarkable  woodcuts,  while  over 
a score  of  pictures  by  him  can  still  be  seen  in  public  and  private 
collections.  It  does  not  require  written  record  to  prove  that 
from  boyhood  he  was  a passionate  worker.  His  only  child  was  a 
daughter  of  unrecorded  motherhood,  born  in  1513.  This  mischance 
did  not  hinder  his  marriage  four  years  later  to  a very  superior  young 
lady,  of  much  higher  rank  than  her  bridegroom.  She  was  Elizabeth, 
daughter  of  the  most  important  noble  family  in  the  town — the 
Van  Boschhuyzens.  The  acceptance  of  such  an  alliance  by  her 
parents,  evidently  with  pride,  seems  to  prove  that  the  young 
artist  w'as  possessed  of  charm  as  well  as  ability.  He  had  already  in 
1515  been  inscribed  on  the  list  of  Arquebusiers,  a guarantee  of  his 
respectable  social  position.  Over  the  troubles  he  had  with  his 

1 Background  figiires  in  other  works  by  Lucas  have  been  pointed  out  as  possible 
self-portraits,  but  not  convincingly.  The  engraving  B.  174,  attributed  to  our  artist, 
was  copied  by  Hondius  as  a portrait  of  Lucas.  The  youth  appears  to  be  some  25  years 
old,  perhaps  less,  but  the  facial  proportions  negative  the  ascription. 

^ A good  summary  of  what  is  known  will  be  found  in  N.  Beets’  Lucas  de  Leyde, 
Brussels,  1913.  See  also  Dulberg’s  articles  in  Oud-Holland,  1899,  and  other  authorities 
cited  by  Beets. 


468 


LUCAS  VAN  LEYDEN 


brother  Dirk,  who  was  evidently  a “ bad  egg,”  we  need  not  delay. 
His  work  was  his  life  and  his  production  its  events.  In  1521  he  was 
at  Antwerp  and  Diirer  met  him  there,  accepted  his  hospitality, 
exchanged  prints  with  him,  and  drew  his  portrait.  He  describes 
him  in  his  diary  as  “ a little  mannikin  ” {ein  Meins  Mdnnlein)  “ who 
engraves  on  copper.”  This  contact  with  the  great  Nuremberg 
artist  was  of  importance  ; the  effect  of  it  is  immediately  traceable 
in  Lucas’  drawings.  He  was  again  at  Antwerp  in  1522,  in  which 
year  his  name  is  found  in  the  books  of  the  Painters’  Guild  as  “ Lucas 
the  Dutchman,  painter.”  How  long  this  Antwerp  visit  lasted  we 
know  not,  but  he  was  certainly  back  at  Leyden  in  1525.  In  1527 
he  undertook  that  festive  journey  in  his  own  boat  round  the  art- 
centres  of  the  Netherlands  on  which  he  was  accompanied  by  Mabuse 
as  above  related.  It  was  the  ruin  of  his  health.  He  contracted  a 
fever,  probably  malaria,  and  never  was  well  again.  It  can  hardly 
be  literally  true  that  he  spent  most  of  the  remaining  six  years  of  his 
life  in  bed,  for  he  could  not  there  have  painted  the  pictures  still 
existing.  It  has  been  claimed  that  Lucas  had  accomplished  the 
best  work  he  was  capable  of  before  his  early  death  in  1533,  the  year 
in  which  both  Cornelis  Engebrechtsen  and  Jacob  van  Oostsanen 
also  died.  His  long  illness  must  be  taken  into  account.  If  during 
his  last  years  his  art  did  not  progress,  that  is  no  proof  that  it  would 
not  have  advanced  if  his  health  had  been  maintained.  His  develop- 
ment, if  erratic,  was  fairly  continuous  up  to  1527,  and  I am  content 
to  believe  that  in  the  next  ten  years  he  would  have  done  better 
still  but  for  that  unfortunate  journey  along  the  mosquito-infected 
canals  and  rivers. 

After  Diirer,  Lucas  was  the  most  important  engraver  of  his  day. 
It  was  as  an  engraver  that  his  fame  spread  far  and  wide  in  his  own 
lifetime.  It  is  by  his  engravings  even  now  that  he  is  best  known. 
Who  taught  him  this  art  ? Someone  in  Leyden  must  have  supplied 
the  simple  necessary  tools  and  shown  him  how  to  use  them.  There 
were  already  engravers  in  the  Netherlands — a very  poor  lot,  as 
we  can  judge  from  their  surviving  prints.  From  the  best  of  them 
Lucas  cannot  have  learned  more  than  the  rudiments,  but  to  so 
gifted  a genius  the  rudiments  sufficed.  He  developed  his  waxing 
powers  by  study  of  Diirer’s  engravings  and  directed  his  efforts  by 
them.  We  are  not  writing  a history  of  engraving  and  must  pass 


EARLY  ENGRAVINGS 


469 


rapidly  over  our  artist’s  productions  in  this  kind,  but  his  develop- 
ment as  a painter  would  be  inexplicable  if  we  had  not  his  ninety-two 
dated  engravings  to  fill  out  the  picture.  The  earliest  of  these  is 
the  Mahomet  (B.  126)  of  1508.  Internal  evidence  indicates  that  it 
was  preceded  by  a number  of  undated  compositions.  The  chrono- 
logical list  printed  by  Bartsch  more  than  a century  ago  is  generally 
accepted  as  fairly  satisfactory,  but  Beets  promises  a revision  which 
has  not  yet  appeared. 

Everyone  accepts  as  very  early  certain  prints  in  which  nude 
figures  are  introduced,  the  engraving  of  the  Fall  (B.  7)  being  a 
typical,  perhaps  the  earliest  example.  The  figures  are  crudely 
drawn  and  awkward,  all  joints  and  knobs.  It  is  evident  that  they 
were  not  studied  from  life.  Yet  this  is  already  artist’s  work, 
marked  by  an  uncouth  vigour  and  conceived  as  a whole  with  a 
sense  of  light  and  shade  borrowed  from  no  one.  The  figures 
in  full  light  are  projected  against  a sombre  background  of  dark 
wood,  the  tree- trunks  huddled  together  and  a black  sky  visible 
between  them.  Another  Fall  (B.  90)  of  early  date  shows  Adam 
with  a huge  ill-shaped  lump  of  a shoulder,  such  as  Engebrechtsen 
misdrew  on  the  wing  of  the  Utrecht  Crucifixion.  More  remarkable 
— indeed,  very  remarkable,  for  a young  artist — is  a somewhat  later 
plate,  called  the  Adieu  (P.  177),  in  which  a lady  accompanied  by 
her  maid,  carrying  a jewel-case  in  her  hand,  is  walking  away, 
but  turns  her  head  back  with  passion  to  kiss  the  lover  who  must 
stay  behind.  The  shading  here  is  laid  with  a multitude  of  delicate 
lines.  The  drawing  is  much  better,  the  composition  highly  original 
for  its  day,  the  sentiment  impossible  for  a mere  boy — the  whole 
wonderful  enough  for  a youth  of  18.  The  attraction  to  depict 
strong  effects  of  light  and  shade,  which  led  most  Dutch  painters 
of  the  day  to  produce  imitations  of  Geertgen’s  Nativity,  found 
with  Lucas  a more  original  expression  in  the  engraving  called  the 
Torchbearer  (B.  147).  The  flame  illuminates  three  figures  passing 
along  a darkened  street  and  suggests,  if  it  does  not  depict,  a glare 
in  the  night.  Neither  Durer  nor  any  other  engraver  had  played 
with  so  strong  a chiaroscuro.  It  is  an  original  effort,  proof  of 
inventive  force  and  imaginative  enterprise,  which  would  have 
been  remarkable  at  that  day  in  a mature  artist,  but  is  astonishing 
in  a youth.  Compositions  such  as  the  Rest  by  the  Way  (B.  38), 


470 


LUCAS  VAN  LEYDEN 


Abraham  and  Hagar  (B.  17),  or  the  Holy  Family  under  a Tree 
(B.  85)  are  more  advanced,  by  no  means  on  traditional  lines,  and 
each  somewhat  better  composed,  better  drawn,  better  balanced 
than  its  predecessor.  In  most  of  them  trees  are  introduced  with 
big  trunks  and  large  though  often  spare  foliage  reminiscent  of 
Mostaert.  The  black-and-white  is  decoratively  composed,  and 
the  figures  are  placed  and  sized  with  due  regard  to  the  form  and 
dimensions  of  the  plate.  Yet  more  notable  alike  for  composition 
and  the  elaborateness  of  the  delicate  line-work  and  gradations  of 
tone  is  the  David  harping  before  Saul  (B.  27),  in  which  the  back- 
ground is  again  black,  the  heads  behind  in  a half-light,  those  in 
front  fully  illumined.  The  figures  are  now  on  a larger  scale,  the  heads 
varied  in  character  and  expression,  with  gestures  to  match,  though 
the  madly  brooding  king,  twisted  into  an  awkward  posture  by  his 
gloomy  and  angry  inw'ard  emotion,  was  rather  beyond  the  artist’s 
power  to  realize.  Best  of  all  is  St.  George  saluting  the  weeping 
Princess,  just  saved  by  his  prowess  from  the  dragon.  Her  gesture  is 
that  of  many  a Magdalen  in  Netherlands  Passion  pictures,  but  for 
the  rest  it  is  Durer  whose  promptings  have  been  followed,  and  some 
of  his  elements  imitated  by  a creative,  not  a mechanical  follower.  ‘ 

It  is  not  till  after  these  and  other  plates  that  we  come  to  the 
dated  Mahomet  (B.  126)  of  1508,  a more  extensive,  if  not  a more 
original  composition,  well  thought  out,  the  story  well  told,  and  the 
background  of  landscape  much  more  elaborate.  We  are  asked  to 
believe  that  this  was  the  work  of  a boy  of  14,  and  that  the  others 
preceded  it  over  a period  of  five  years.  My  credulity  does  not 
thus  far  extend  : even  if  I may  call  him  but  19  in  1508,  I can 
accomplish  acquiescence  only  with  difficulty.  It  is  not  that  signs 
of  genius  are  lacking  ; it  is  that  there  is  so  much  evidence  of 
hard  work,  of  effort  in  one  direction  after  another,  of  experiment 
and  labour  involving  time,  a certain  maturity  of  judgment,  and 
the  growth  of  a masculine,  not  a boyish  emotion.  To  this  same 
year  1508  also  belongs  a delicate  drawing  of  David  before  Saul,  a 
study  doubtless  made  and  rejected  in  connexion  with  the  engraving. 
It  is  further  evidence  that  the  plates  were  not  seized  upon  and 
wrought  in  a hurry,  if  such  evidence  were  at  all  necessary.  Another 
early,  probably  earlier,  drawing  in  the  Fairfax  Murray  Collection 
1 Beets  attributes  the  Saul  to  1509. 


HIS  PRECOCITY 


471 


is  of  bolder  character,  and  shows  a “pull  Devil,  pull  beggar” 
struggle  between  Death  and  a horribly  frightened  young  man. 
They  sit  on  the  ground  feet  to  feet  tugging  at  a leg-bone,  and  there 
is  nothing  to  show  which  will  lose,  but  should  it  be  the  youth 
his  coffin  is  waiting  for  him  in  the  background.  Grim  humour 
of  this  kind  is  not  common  with  Lucas. 

Evidently  the  young  artist  was  now  confident  of  his  powers 
and  ready  for  further  efforts  and  adventures.  Accordingly,  in 
1508  he  attacked  a plate  of  much  larger  size  than  before  and 
covered  it  with  an  elaborate  composition  depicting  the  Conversion 
of  St.  Paul.  A stroke  from  heaven  has  overthrown  horse  and  man 
in  the  background.  That  is  a mere  detail  to  identify  the  subject. 
The  blinded  and  shell-shocked  leader  of  the  party  is  seen  in  the 
foreground,  himself  the  led,  surrounded  by  his  men  who  guide 
liis  tottering  steps.  The  marching  of  the  party  is  better  depicted 
than  ever  before.  The  weight  of  the  body  is  thrown  forward  on 
the  straight  advanced  leg,  and  a sense  of  motion  conveyed.  Even 
the  dogs  appear  to  move  with  the  rest.  Now  also  Lucas  issued  nine 
large  circular  prints,  illustrative  of  the  Passion,  with  a decorative 
border  which  could  be  used  with  each  in  turn.  They  were  either 
suggested  by  or  intended  as  designs  for  painted  glass  roundels. 
The  subjects  are  the  usual  repulsive  set,  and  we  need  not  linger 
over  them. 

Thus,  either  in  or  just  after  the  year  1510,  when  we  may  guess 
Lucas  to  have  been  about  21,  we  approach  and  may  discuss 
his  first  group  of  panel  pictures.  They  are  among  the  most 
attractive  of  his  works.  An  Adoration  of  the  Magi,  now  in  the 
Ryerson  Collection  at  Chicago,  may  be  taken  as  example.*  Com- 
pared with  the  common  run  of  Magi  pictures  so  numerous  at  that 
time,  especially  in  the  output  of  the  Antwerp  studios,  this  is  in- 
finitely refreshing.  The  foreground  figures,  not  seen  below  the 
knee,  are  of  varied  character  and  quite  charmingly  painted  with 
a delicacy  and  refinement  of  touch  that  delight  the  eye.  The 
rendering  of  varied  textures  is  masterly.  There  is  no  search  after 
things  elaborate  and  peculiar — no  astonishing  architecture,  no 
very  marvellous  brocades,  no  strut  or  swagger  about  the  folk. 

* I am  indebted  to  the  Spanish  Gallery  in  London  for  a photograph  of  it,  and  for 
calling  my  attention  to  the  picture  which  passed  through  their  hands. 


472 


LUCAS  VAN  LEYDEN 


They  are  simply  employed,  and  they  charm  the  vision.  There 
are  tramping  steeds  of  cart-horse  type,  small  in  the  background, 
and  behind  them  a romantic  landscape  purely  but  efficiently 
decorative.  The  panel  is  small  and  the  style  of  the  work  matches 
the  scale.  It  comes  from  a mature  artist  superior  to  any  other 
then  at  work  in  Holland.  If  Engebrechtsen  was  his  master  —and  we 
have  no  reason  to  doubt  the  record — the  mark  that  he  left  on  his 
pupil  was  singularly  faint.  He  told  him,  of  course,  how  to  mix  and 
lay  on  his  paints,  and  Lucas  borrowed  his  chord  of  colour  from  him 
— the  bright  tints,  the  shot  colours  ; but  he  did  not  borrow  his 
forms,  his  kind  of  composition,  his  types  of  figure  or  costume. 
The  fountain  of  original  creation  welled  up  so  strongly  in  Lucas 
from  the  first  that  he  had  no  need  of  aught  save  technical  instruc- 
tion from  without.  He  inherited,  however,  some  of  Engebrechtsen’ s 
weaknesses,  such  as  his  bad  foreshortening  of  heads  (e.g.  in  B.  24, 
25,  29,  etc.)  and  shoulders,  and  never  quite  threw  them  off. 

I have  named  this  picture  first  because  of  its  charm,  but  the 
Chess-players  at  Berlin  (No.  105)  is  probably  earlier.  Lucas  was 
ignorant  of  the  game  or  would  not  have  made  the  board  oblong 
with  twelve  squares  in  one  direction  and  eight  in  the  other ! It 
was  not  the  game  that  interested  him,  but  the  players  and  onlookers, 
their  heads  and  their  expressions.  The  lady  is  checkmating  her 
opponent,  and  he  is  supposed  to  be  overcome.  His  expression  is 
a failure.  The  subject  was  beyond  the  artist’s  powers.  There  is 
no  concentration  upon  the  event  nor  any  unity  holding  all  together. 
Particular  heads  are  good,  some  very  good,  and  they  are  cleverly 
but  artificially  patched  together,  not  united  by  the  nature  of  the 
case  or  any  inevitability  such  as  a finely  successful  composition 
appears  to  imply.  Far  better,  admirable  indeed  in  a high  degree, 
is  the  Susanna  at  Bremen— a gem  likewise  of  small  dimensions. 
Here  the  figures,  only  seen  to  the  waist  as  in  the  other  two  pictures, 
are  crowded  together,  but  in  perfect  relation  to  one  another ; 
their  expressions  and  gestures  match  their  parts — ^the  lady  resigned, 
Daniel  eager,'  the  judge  shrewdly  observant,  the  old  men  rather 
stupid,  and  a brilliant  and  beautiful  youth  ^ looking  on  from  behind 

' A similar  youthful  demonstrator  appears  in  the  Joseph  print  (B.  19)  of  1512. 

2 The  same  model  seems  to  have  been  employed  for  Joseph  as  dream-interpreter 
(B.  22),  also  in  1512. 


HIS  EARLY  PICTURES 


473 


with  lips  parted  and  the  eyes  of  a lover.  No  group  like  this  can 
be  found  in  any  contemporary  picture  of  the  school.  It  is  a 
brilliant  and  novel  improvisation.  We  are  asked  to  believe  it 
the  work  of  a boy  of  16  ! It  is  an  impossibility. 

Another  large  plate  engraved  about  this  time  (c.  1510)  is  the 
Return  of  the  Prodigal  Son  (B.  78).  There  are  some  good  figures 
in  it,  not  comparable  to  those  in  the  paintings,  but  it  is  the  advance 
in  landscape  that  arrests  attention.  The  steep  hill  in  the  back- 
ground with  the  faintly  outlined  mountains  behind  projected 
against  a darkened  sky  was  suggested  by  the  landscape  from  near 
Lake  Garda  which  Durer  drew  in  Italy  and  translated  into  a wood- 
cut  on  his  return  home.  Lucas  had  beheld  nothing  like  it  in  nature. 
The  calm  river  in  his  middle  distance  with  village  and  castle 
embowered  in  trees  was  a kind  of  sight  he  may  have  known, 
though  scarcely  thus  looked  down  upon  in  his  flat  homeland.  He 
need  not  have  gone  to  Diirer  for  that  little  group  of  pigs  and 
Prodigal  at  a trough,  but  he  did  so.  Perhaps  they  stuck  in  his 
memory.  The  cow-herd  and  rear  half  of  a cow  just  passing  out 
of  the  plate  were  his  very  own,  and  so  pleased  was  he  with  them  that 
he  forthwith  gave  a whole  plate  to  a cow  (B.  158)  with  cow-herd 
and  milkmaid  at  the  two  ends  of  her  and  a couple  more  beasts 
behind.  It  is  the  first  farmyard  scene,  pure  and  simple,  and 
not  pretending  to  illustrate  history  sacred  or  profane,  ever 
depicted  by  an  artist  for  its  own  sake.  Paul  Potter  is  foretold. 
These  are  far  from  being  all  the  surviving  works  of  this  prolific 
year.  There  are  also  another  very  large  plate,  the  Ecce  Homo 
(B.  71),  with  a well-drawn  background  of  courtyard,  platform, 
and  buildings  entirely  credible  in  character,  a Baptism  with  a 
throng  of  onlookers  (B.  40),  an  Adam,  Eve,  and  baby  (B.  11), 
and  more  beside,  but  enough  has  been  said  to  indicate  the  fury 
of  production  that  raged  within  Lucas  in  this  most  brilliant  period 
of  his  youth. 

After  1508  most  of  his  engravings  are  dated,  but  none  carry 
the  figures  1511.  The  suggestion  has  been  made  that  in  this  year 
he  was  away  from  home  ; if  so,  probably  at  Antwerp,  devoting 
his  energies  to  painting  pictures  as  a welcome  change  after  so  much 
engraving.  Two  of  the  pictures  above  described  may  perhaps  have 
been  made  then.  A remarkable  painting  of  the  Temptation  of 


474 


LUCAS  VAN  LEYDEN 


St.  Anthony  in  the  Brussels  Gallery  is  authenticated  by  the  date. 
Compared  with  those  that  went  before,  it  shows  a marked  change 
of  style  and  expresses  approximation  to  some  new  sphere  of 
influences.  The  build,  the  large  drapery  forms,  the  posture  and 
the  passion  of  the  Saint  are  new  in  Northern  art.  This  figure,  but 
for  its  colouring,  would  hardly  be  out  of  place  in  some  late  Bolognese 
picture.  The  tribe  of  devils  remind  us  of  Bosch,  but  are  not  imitated 
from  him  ; they  are  humorous  creations  without  any  close  parallel. 
The  bare  romantic  landscape  and  the  weird  chiaroscuro — all  the 
light  there  is  in  the  foreground  proceeding  from  a crucifix — are 
necessary  factors  in  an  integral  whole.  So  sudden  a change  in 
imaginative  vision  seems  to  imply  the  artist’s  transference  to  a 
new  medium,  for  it  is  easier  to  suppose  that  he  moved  to  it  than 
that  it  came  to  him.  Beets’  suggestion  of  an  Antwerp  visit  at  this 
time  thus  receives  support.  A butterfly  may  be  observed  clinging 
to  the  Saint’s  drapery.  This  little  detail  is  of  South  Netherlandish 
origin.  Flies  and  other  insects  carefully  studied  from  nature  were 
commonly  introduced  into  the  borders  of  illuminated  manuscripts 
by  Flemish  miniaturists  of  the  late  fifteenth  century.  Thence 
they  found  their  way  into  pictures  ^ at  Bruges  and  Antwerp,  and 
from  such  Lucas  must  have  caught  the  trick.  Antwerp  influence 
is  yet  more  evident  in  a Beheading  of  St.  John  Baptist  which  is  in 
the  J.  G.  Johnson  Collection.  The  costume  of  Herodias  is  of  Ant- 
werp fashion  copied  at  first  hand.  The  loose  open  sleeve  gathered 
below  the  shoulder,  which  is  puffed  and  slashed,  is  not  found  in  any 
picture  by  Engebrechtsen  or  Jacob  van  Oostsanen,  but  is  common  for 
a year  or  two  at  Antwerp.  The  headdress  belongs  to  the  same 
school  of  costume.^  If,  however,  the  fashion  is  borrowed,  Lucas 
treated  the  drapery  in  a free  style  of  his  own  and  gave  to  it  the 
animation  of  the  figure  it  clothed  while  endowing  it  with  a decorative 
quality.  Here  as  always  he  remains  himself,  conceiving  anew  with 
entire  detachment  the  most  hackneyed  subjects  and  designing 
them  as  though  no  one  had  ever  done  so  before. 

If  Beets  is  correct  in  his -confident  reading  of  the  date  1511  upon 

1 Examples  may  be  cited  by  Joos  van  Cleve.  There  is  a Flemish  Madonna  in  Lord 
Methuen’s  collection  with  a great  blue-bottle  fly  in  a prominent  position  on  some  light 
drapery. 

2 A sleeve  not  of  the  same,  but  of  an  approximating  fashion,  appears  in  the  Solomon 
print  (B.  30)  of  1514. 


A NEW  STYLE 


475 


the  bust-portrait  of  a man  in  the  Valkenburg  Collection  at  The 
Hague,  it  also  was  painted  at  this  moment  of  new  insight.  ^ From 
every  point  of  view  it  is  a novel  and  striking  work,  the  sitter 
keenly  observed,  the  features  boldly  rendered  with  a free  and 
flowing  brush,  the  sharp  outlines  of  earlier  portraitists  replaced  by 
a less  definite  limitation  of  forms,  the  whole  exemplifying  the 
suggestiveness  which  culminates  with  Rembrandt  and  calls  upon 
the  spectator  to  contribute  his  own  share  of  imagination  toward  the 
complete  realization  of  the  painter’s  dream.  This  picture  opens 
a new  epoch  in  portraiture,  and  founds  the  great  style  which 
Rembrandt  and  Hals  were  to  carry  to  a perfection  of  its  own. 
It  is  the  glory  of  Leyden  to  have  given  it  to  the  world.  An  indica- 
tion that  at  this  time  Lucas  was  attending  to  portraiture  is  the 
existence  of  a black  chalk  sketch-portrait  of  a man,  dated  1512, 
which  is  in  the  British  Museum.  It  is  done  in  a brilliant  summary 
fashion  and  probably  depicts  a fellow-craftsman.  A more  elaborate 
and  formal  study  for  the  portrait  of  a young  man,  also  in  the  British 
Museum,  appears  to  bear  the  genuine  date  1513.^  It  has  been  a 
good  deal  rubbed,  especially  about  the  face  and  hair,  but  the 
masterly  drawing  of  the  costume  is  well  preserved.  The  half- 
length  figure  and  face  almost  in  profile  are  projected  against  a small 
open  archway  or  window — a common  convention  which  we  may 
be  sure  Lucas  would  have  treated  in  a way  of  his  own. 

In  1512  the  series  of  engravings  takes  a new  start ; at  this  time, 
moreover,  our  artist  designed  a good  many  of  his  best  woodcuts. 
He  was  fortunate  in  being  able  to  command  the  services  of  excellent 
craftsmen  to  carry  them  out.  One  of  his  earliest  blocks  to  which 
a date  can  be  assigned,  a St.  Martin  printed  in  the  Utrecht  Breviary 
issued  from  the  Leyden  press  of  Jan  Severtsz  in  1508,  bears  the 
mark  of  that  excellent  woodcutter  Jost  de  Neghker.  I shall  not, 
however,  delay  the  reader  over  works  of  this  class,  because  they  do 
not  bring  us  so  closely  into  relation  with  the  artist  himself,  and  we 
have  in  his  engravings  and  paintings  abundant  material  for  following 
the  changes  in  his  style  and  development  of  his  outlook.  Five 

1 Beets  was  aware  that  Friedlander  and  others  read  the  figures  1517,  but  he  asserts 
that  the  last  figure  is  not  and  cannot  be  a 7,  and  this  after  close  and  repeated  examination. 

* Reproduced  by  the  Vasari  Society.  I understand  that  this  date  has  been  questioned 
in  Onze  Kunst  (April  1915),  and  1518-20  suggested  instead.  I have  been  unable  to  pro- 
cure a copy  of  the  article. 


476 


LUCAS  VAN  LEYDEN 


engravings  of  1512  devoted  to  the  story  of  Joseph  (B.  19-23)  were 
evidently  admired.  At  least,  one  of  them  (B.  21)  was  copied  in 
tapestry.i  The  large  Magi  print  of  1513  (B.  37)  is  one  of  Lucas’ 
best.  It  is  a more  advanced  composition  than  the  painting  of  two 
or  three  years  before,  but  what  it  has  gained  in  learning  and  com- 
plexity it  has  lost  in  charm.  The  figure  of  the  central  king  seems 
not  entirely  unconnected  with  that  of  Abraham  in  Engebrechtsen’s 
picture  in  the  Auspitz  Collection,  but  I suspect  the  latter  to  have 
been  the  borrower.  Both  artists  were  impressed  by  Durer’s 
engraving  of  the  Knight  and  Death.  We  have  seen  the  use  made 
of  it  by  Engebrechtsen  in  a picture  called  Mordecai  and  Haman. 
Lucas  borrowed  the  horse,  but  much  more  freely,  in  an  engraving 
(B.  32)  of  a similar  subject,  the  processional  triumph  of  Mordecai, 
but  instead  of  strewing  Haman  in  the  foreground  he  exalted  him 
on  a very  remote  gallows.  The  movement  of  the  figures  and  espe- 
cially of  the  horse  is  excellently  rendered,  even  better  than  with 
Durer. 

Portrait  drawings  continued  to  appear  from  time  to  time,  and 
there  are  several  in  the  British  Museum  undated  but  attributable 
to  these  years.  There  is  also  a good  example  in  the  Correr  Museum 
at  Venice,  doubtless  a finished  study  for  a painting.  It  shows  us  a 
youth  in  a fur-trimmed  coat  and  cap  with  brim  that  can  turn  up 
or  down,  a face  carefully  modelled,  almost  in  profile  and  relieved 
against  a shaded  background.  An  individual  in  a fur  cap  is  boldly 
rendered  in  the  British  Museum,  and  several  more  might  be  cited.® 
A striking  picture  of  St.  Jerome  in  penitence  at  Berlin  (No.  493) 
shows  the  Saint,  partly  nude,  with  some  drapery  loosely  gathered 
about  him.  It  is  better  drapery  than  can  easily  be  found  in 
Netherlands  pictures  of  the  period  and  shows  an  advance  on  that 
of  Herodias.  The  great  tree-trunks  are  decoratively  employed, 
and  their  strong  upright  forms  give  vigour  to  the  composition. 
The  drawing  of  shoulder  and  back  is  still  defective  and  labours 
under  the  bad  tradition  of  Engebrechtsen.  An  engraving  of  the 
same  subject  (B.  113)  is  dated  1516,  which  is  the  probable  date  of 
the  picture  also,  the  two  being  linked  together  by  a similar  and 
original  treatment  of  the  halo.  The  year  1517  brings  forth  another 

1 Otlet  sale  (1902),  No.  99. 

2 See  Sidney  Colvin  in  the  Jahrb,  d.  Pr.  Kss.,  xiv,  p.  165,  with  numerous  reproductions. 


HIS  PORTRAIT-DRAWINGS 


477 


of  the  large  plates,  the  Crucifixion  (B.  74).  Attention  is  distracted 
from  the  tragedy  on  a hillock  behind  by  the  multifarious  groups  of 
larger  scale  in  the  foregound,  folk  discussing,  quarrelling,  or  reflect- 
ing, as  the  case  may  be.  A woman  with  her  infant  (unfortunately 
ill-drawn)  sitting  alone  in  front  is  intended  to  suggest  a reminiscence 
of  the  beginning  of  a life  to  end  thus  dreadfully.  The  treatment  of 
the  subject  as  a whole  is  described  as  “cold” — mercifully  so. 
It  lacks  the  repulsiveness  inherent  in  most  Dutch  Crucifixions 
of  the  day,  and  that  is  well.  The  time  had  not  yet  come  for  the 
painting  of  such  a glorious  dramatic  presentment  as  Tintoret’s, 
rising  far  above  mere  horror  and  disgust.  That  involved  the  com- 
mand of  resources  not  yet  at  the  disposal  of  any  painter.  For 
dignified  emblematic  representation  such  as  Perugino’s  wall- 
paintings  at  Florence  the  time  had  passed. 

The  year  1518  produced  a plentiful  crop  of  engravings  of  religious 
subjects,  several  of  them  “ pot-boilers,”  but  the  small  figure  of  the 
Magdalen  exalted  on  clouds  is  an  imposing  though  rather  material 
apparition.  Esther  before  Ahasuerus  (B.  31)  is  quite  uninspired. 
I name  it  because  there  is  at  Frankfurt  a drawing  put  forward  as 
containing  studies  for  two  of  the  heads  alongside  of  a third  which  is 
that  of  St.  Luke  in  the  engraving  B.  104.  The  fact  that  all  three 
face  in  the  same  direction  as  in  the  prints  suggests  that  they  are 
copies  from  them,  and  a careful  examination  reveals  the  mechanical 
character  of  the  drawing  and  disproves  the  handiwork  of  Lucas. 
The  faintly  outlined  profile  has  a curiously  modern  appearance. 
Diilberg,  in  my  opinion,  correctly  attributes  to  about  1519  the  well- 
known  painted  portrait  at  Brunswick,  long  and  wrongly  supposed 
to  be  a likeness  of  the  artist  painted  by  himself  at  the  age  of  15. 
Vermeulen  proves,  by  the  fashion  of  the  shirt-collar,  that  the 
picture  cannot  be  dated  earlier  than  1518. ^ The  personage  depicted 
is  a full-grown  man  not  in  the  least  like  Lucas  or  any  other  artist. 
He  is  splendidly  characterized  with  his  lowering  brow,  overhanging 
eyelids,  protruding  lower  lip,  and  underhung  chin.  Sulky,  surly, 
and  sly,  he  looms  out  upon  us  with  light  upon  his  ugly  face  and 
darkness  all  around. 

Silver-point  drawings  by  Lucas  are  not  common.  There  is  one 
in  the  British  Museum  ^ which  contains  studies  from  the  nude, 

1 Onze  Kunst,  vol.  xxvii  (1915),  p.  98.  ^ Reproduced  by  the  Vasari  Soc.,  iii,  21, 

32 


478 


LUCAS  VAN  LEYDEN 


the  same  man  twice  over,  figures  seated  back  to  back  upon  a globe, 
with  a lion  crouching  beside  him  and  a vine  tendril  in  his  hand. 
The  meaning  of  the  design  escapes  us  ; perhaps  it  had  none.  Far 
finer  is  the  almost  life-size  masterly  sketch  of  a woman’s  head, 
the  portrait  of  a most  competent  lady,  dated  1519,  likewise  in  the 
British  Museum.  A Leonardesque-looking  man’s  face  is  lightly 
sketched  in  beside  hers.  It  has  been  thought  that  a similar 
pair  may  be  discerned  in  the  foreground  of  the  large  contemporary 
engraving  (B.  122)  which  depicts  the  Magdalen  in  her  very  moderate 
and  respectable  gaieties.  The  likeness  is  not  striking.  This  is  the 
latest  of  Lucas’  large  plates  with  many  figures.  It  is  lacking 
in  the  vivacity  and  spirit  such  a subject  might  have  been  expected 
to  evoke.  There  is  art  in  the  distribution  of  figures  and  groups, 
but  the  hunting  and  hunted  animals  in  the  background  are  curiously 
stiff  and  the  work,  as  a whole,  lacks  the  spontaneity  and  inventive- 
ness of  earlier  days.  It  looks  as  though  Lucas  had  ceased  to  find 
entertainment  in  narrative  illustration.  Perhaps  the  process  he 
had  employed  so  long  had  become  mechanically  wearisome  to  him 
and  ceased  to  stimulate  his  inventiveness  and  resource. 

In  1520  we  find  him  adopting  that  mixture  of  engraving  and 
etching  employed  by  Diirer.  One  of  the  uses  to  which  he  put  it 
was  to  make  an  engraved  translation  (B.  172)  of  that  master’s 
great  portrait  woodcut  of  the  Emperor  Maximilian.  The  artist’s 
pen-and-ink  design  for  it  was  in  a private  collection  in  Paris  a few 
years  ago.'  A copy  does  not  count  for  much,  while  the  four  small 
original  compositions  thus  engraved  by  him  (B.  12,  29,  125,  and  150) 
do  not  take  rank  among  his  best  prints,  but  the  Till  Owlglass 
(B.  159)  is  enlightened  by  his  quiet  humour  and  homely  observation. 
It  offers  an  entertaining  mediaeval  parallel  to  the  troubles  of  the 
Old  Woman  who  lived  in  a Shoe.  The  obvious  suggestion  has  been 
put  forth  that  Lucas  made  a trial  of  the  new  process  on  the  occasion 
of  his  visit  to  Antwerp.  Diirer  mentions  meeting  him  there,  and 
it  is  possible  that  Lucas  received  hints  or  instruction  from  him. 
The  process  of  etching  was  in  itself  no  novelty,  but  its  application 
to  the  engraving  of  plates  was  recent.*  Lucas  was  the  first  artist 

1 Gaz.  d.  Beaux-Arts,  1876,  i,  p.  525. 

2 For  an  account  of  the  introduction  of  etching,  see  G.  Pauli,  Incunabulen  der  . . . 
Radierung,  Graphische  Gesellschaft,  1908,  with  many  reproductions. 


INFLUENCE  OF  DURER 


479 


of  the  Low  Countries  so  to  employ  it,  but  did  not  find  it  satis- 
factory and  after  a few  experiments  gave  it  up.  It  is  evident  that 
commerce  with  Diirer  produced  a considerable  effect  on  him, 
not  that  we  shall  henceforward  find  him  slavishly  imitating  Durer’s 
designs  or  modifying  his  own  style  in  a Diireresque  direction.  He 
had  long  ago  absorbed  all  of  Diirer’s  art  that  was  suited  for  absorp- 
tion by  him.  But  he  noted  some  of  the  rhaterial  factors  of  Diirer’s 
prosperity  and  observed  the  kinds  of  print  which  he  was  able  to  sell 
freely.  That,  no  doubt,  was  why  he  in  turn  presently  (in  1521) 
issued  a small  engraved  Passion  of  fourteen  plates,  also  a St.  Jerome, ^ 
and  later  two  Virgins  on  the  Crescent  (B.  80  and  82),  and  a seated 
Virgin  bending  forward  over  the  Child  (B.  84).  The  peasant 
subjects  of  1523  and  1524  were  likewise  suggested  by  Diirer’s 
prints,  and  others  might  be  cited.  It  was  not,  I imagine,  a motive 
of  artistic  admiration  but  of  commercial  rivalry  that  drew  these 
products  from  the  hand  of  Lucas.  They  are  consequently  of  little 
intrinsic  interest  or  merit. 

It  was  otherwise  with  some  fine  portrait  drawings  in  a new 
technique  of  which  three  bear  the  date  1521.  In  the  Louvre  are 
four  more.  It  was  Diirer’s  habit,  especially  after  dinner,  to  draw 
in  chalk,  charcoal,  or  silver-point  a portrait  of  his  host  or  some 
individual  who  may  or  may  not  have  paid  him.  He  thus  drew 
Lucas  himself  twice  over — once  in  chalk  on  the  sheet  now  in  the 
British  Museum  and  once  in  silver-point.  Evidently  Lucas  was 
moved  to  rivalry  in  this  sort  of  work,  though  in  a modified  technique 
of  his  own,  the  modelling  and  shadows  being  done,  engraver-like, 
with  parallel  lines  and  cross-hatchings.  There  is  a large  and 
striking  portrait  of  a sweet  woman  in  the  Museum  at  Weimar, 
the  face  not  perfectly  foreshortened,  but,  nevertheless,  a very 
pleasing  work.  A yellow  background  washed  in  effectively  shows 
up  the  head  and  bust.  She  wears  an  early  example  of  the  white 
cap  with  two  long  tails  so  characteristic  of  Dutch  portraits  during 
the  next  twenty  years  or  so.  At  Stockholm  is  a life-size  study  of 
the  head  of  a man  as  to  the  draughtsmanship  of  which  no  criticism 
can  be  made.  More  delicately  modelled  and  better  finished  is 
the  head  of  a somewhat  younger  man  in  Leyden  Museum.  It  is 
masterly  work  of  the  most  satisfying  kind,  full  of  observation, 

1 A silver-point  study  for  this  engraving  is  in  the  Ufflzi  (No.  8,705  D). 


480 


LUCAS  VAN  LEYDEN 


dignity,  and  reserve.  What  a pity  that  Lucas  in  his  turn  did  not 
hand  down  to  us  a portrait  of  Diirer  ! All  these  likenesses  are 
marked  by  a common  element  which  belonged  to  the  artist,  not  to 
the  sitters.  He  beheld  them  with  a kind  of  stately  gravity,  and 
infused  into  them  an  aspect  of  gentleness  which  must  have  been 
his  own  and  harmonizes  with  Diirer’s  portrait  of  him. 

Lord  Pembroke’s  picture  of  the  Card  Players  above  referred  to 
must  have  been  painted  about  this  time,  rather  before  than  after 
the  Antwerp  visit,  but  perhaps  actually  done  beside  the  Scheldt. 
Compared  with  the  early  Chess-players  it  shows  a rich  maturing. 
The  game  and  its  chances  unite  the  figures,  except  those  of  the 
painter  and  the  woman  beside  him,  probably  his  wife,  who  stand 
unconcerned  behind.  The  rest  are  occupied,  paying  or  receiving 
money,  considering  their  cards,  offering  or  accepting  advice.  The 
light  and  grouping  give  prominence  to  a central  individual  whose 
face  is  an  excellent  portrait.  A good  deal  of  money  is  at  stake, 
but  everything  proceeds  quietly  and  with  decorum.  The  pro- 
jection against  the  open  window  of  the  sharp  profile  of  a flatfish 
hat  produces  an  excellent  effect.  The  whole  picture  is  well  built 
up,  yet  even  in  it  there  are  failures  in  the  foreshortening  of  faces, 
the  result  of  early  miseducation.  In  1522  Lucas  was  still  at 
Antwerp.  A picture  at  Munich  shows  that  local  influences  were 
working  upon  him.  It  was  once  a diptych  with  the  Annunciation 
outside,  the  Virgin  and  Child  on  one  wing,  the  donor  and  his 
wife  on  the  other  in  the  characters  of  St.  Joseph  and  the  Magdalen. 
This  is,  perhaps,  one  of  the  pictures  described  by  Van  Mander, 
though  it  differs  from  the  description  in  certain  not  unimportant 
details.  Thus  the  lower  part  of  the  Virgin’s  body  is  not  hidden  by 
a stone,  a feature  in  the  Berlin  Madonna.  Possibly  Van  Mander, 
having  seen  both,  wrote  from  memory,  and  confused  them  to- 
gether. The  refined  Renaissance  arcading,  the  Virgin’s  canopy  and 
festoon-holding  cherubs,  her  throne,  the  Magdalen’s  costume,  the 
flutter  of  the  Annunciation — all  these  are  Antwerp  elements  and 
prove  that  the  forms  as  well  as  the  spirit  of  the  Renaissance  were 
beginning  to  take  hold  upon  the  taste  of  Lucas.  Probably  the 
Berlin  Madonna  (No.  744)  with  the  cherubs  and  grapes  was  painted 
at  the  same  time  and  place.  It  contains  portraits  of  three  young 
children,  both  they  and  the  cherubs  better  drawn  than  the  Christ- 


THE  LEYDEN  LAST  JUDGMENT 


481 


Child.  It  is  extraordinary  how  badly  Lucas  drew  infant  Christs. 
Words  need  not  be  wasted  over  their  ugliness,  which  is  hard  to 
explain.  His  barren  marriage  may  be  remembered.  The  cherubs 
owe  much  to  Diirer,  as  a glance  reveals.  About  now  or  a little 
later  Lucas  may  have  painted  the  set  of  pictures  in  tempera  on 
linen  which  Van  Mander  saw  in  the  house  of  a brewer  at  Delft. 
One  is  in  the  New  York  Museum  ; copies  of  two  more  appear  to 
be  at  Hampton  Court.  They  depict  incidents  in  the  story  of 
Joseph.^ 

The  most  important  work  of  the  artist’s  later  years  is  the 
famous  Last  Judgment  triptych  now  in  the  Leyden  Town  Museum, 
the  order  for  which  was  placed  with  him  in  August  1526.  Last 
Judgments  were  not  well  painted  by  Netherlands  artists.  The 
subject  was  too  vast  and  dramatic  for  their  gifts  and  style  of 
design.  Roger’s  Beaune  picture  contains  many  a fine  figure,  but 
it  is  far  from  impressive  as  a whole.  His  type  was  followed  with 
no  increase  of  grandeur  by  his  successors.  Changes  took  place  in 
the  design  with  the  years,  more  space  and  prominence  being  given 
to  the  human  figures  below  and  less  to  the  heavenly  host.  The 
reader  will  recall  the  Dutch  versions  we  have  already  mentioned— 
the  vault-painting  of  Alkmaar  and  two  panels  by  Mostaert.  They 
are  not  impressive.  Bernard  van  Orley’s  picture  finished  about 
1525  is  a little  but  not  much  better.  Beets,  with  justice,  claims 
that  it  influenced  Lucas.  At  all  events,  he  improved  upon  his 
predecessors,  though  he  did  not  raise  the  subject  to  the  high  plane 
of  drama  which  alone  could  justify  its  treatment.  The  earth  for 
him  is  a wide  flat  expanse  out  of  which  the  dead  arise  in  scattered 
groups.  There  are  no  hills,  streams,  trees,  or  other  features  to 
distract  the  attention  from  humanity.  That  was  a wise  economy. 
The  figures,  though  not  very  numerous,  are  emphatic  and  become 
representative.  One  can  imagine  the  bare  expanse  indefinitely 
extended  outside  the  limits  of  the  picture  and  similar  incidents 
occurring  everywhere.  The  sky  is  dotted  about  with  individual 
apparitions.  There  is  no  impression  of  a host,  nor  of  great  power. 
The  figure  of  Christ  is  unimpressive.  Only  two  trumpeting 
angels  swoop  down  with  any  sense  of  speed  and  might.  If  the  upper 

1 At  Hampton  Court  is  also  a St.  Sebastian  for  which  a similar  claim  may  be  made. 
See  Burlington  Mag.,  December  1910  and  January  1911. 


482 


LUCAS  VAN  LEYDEN 


part  of  the  painting  were  blotted  out  the  remainder  would  be  raised 
in  tragic  effect.  It  was,  indeed,  only  that  remainder,  the  figures 
upon  the  ground,  that  kindled  the  imagination  of  the  artist.  All 
above,  except  the  two  trumpeting  angels,  is  perfunctory  work. 
There  is  nothing  perfunctory  about  the  risen,  especially  in  the 
foreground  groups.  They  are  the  artist’s  real  subject.  The  rest 
is  adjunct.  They  are  of  necessity  an  assemblage  of  nudes,  not 
mere  attenuated  anatomies  constructed  according  to  a mediaeval 
formula  as  with  Roger  or  Memling,  but  drawn  from  actual  models, 
the  best  available  at  Leyden.  Lucas  controlled  his  observation 
by  memory  of  Diirer’s  Adam  and  Eve  and  called  his  inventiveness 
into  full  play  to  avoid  monotony  of  posture  under  a very  strict 
reserve  of  decency.  These  are  puritanical  nudes,  for  all  their  lack 
of  clothes.  A female  figure  on  the  left  is  most  prominent,  studied 
and  finished  with  elaborate  care,  but  it  would  be  tedious  to  dwell 
in  words  on  what  was  made  to  appeal  directly  to  the  eye.  The 
wing  devoted  to  Hell  contains  the  usual  diabolic  ineptitudes,  and 
instead  of  provoking  our  horror  and  repulsion  enlists  our  sympathy. 
The  other  wing  is  better,  the  foreground  entirely  filled  by  a small 
number  of  finely  draped  guardian  angels  and  their  safely  landed 
charges.  I can  find  in  all  this  no  trace  of  Italian  influence.  The 
spirit  of  the  Renaissance  is  there,  but  all  the  forms  are  of  the  North, 
and  this  is  very  plain  to  see  when  the  wings  are  closed  and  we 
behold  the  two  animated  saints  in  a landscape  of  bay  and  hills. 
They  are  vigorously  gesturing,  not  because  they  have  anything  to 
say  or  anyone  to  say  it  to,  but  because  the  spirit  of  the  time  asked 
for  activity.  The  old  dignified  repose  of  such  figures  no  longer 
pleased  the  public.  The  world  was  being  turned  upside  down  and 
everyone  wanted  to  be  pushing  at  it.  I suppose  that  is  why 
St.  Peter  has  such  a tousled  head.  He  looks  as  though  he  had  just 
emerged  from  a scrimmage.  In  Engebrechtsen  and  Jacob  van 
Oostsanen  we  noted  how,  though  they  introduced  some  Renais- 
sance forms,  the  spirit  of  their  work  remained  essentially  Gothic. 
With  Lucas  van  Leyden  it  is  the  other  way  about.  He  was  from 
the  first  quickened  by  the  modern  spirit,  which  expressed  itself 
in  all  he  made,  whatever  forms  he  adopted.  He  did  not  need  to 
fill  his  backgrounds  with  Renaissance  buildings  of  a highly  decorated 
kind  to  show  that  he  was  “ in  the  movement.”  Such  accessories 


HIS  ILLNESS 


483 


were  immaterial  to  him.  Every  figure  he  drew  was  essentially 
of  the  modern  world  because  he  belonged  to  that  world  heart  and 
soul,  and  the  mediaeval  was  practically  dead  within  him. 

A picture  in  distemper  on  linen,  which  is  in  the  Nuremberg 
Museum,  belongs  to  the  same  culminating  stage  of  Lucas’  work 
as  a painter.  It  is  dated  1527.  The  subject,  Moses  bringing 
water  from  the  rock,  involves  the  assemblage  of  many  figures 
before  a background  of  rocky  landscape.  They  are  extraordinarily 
well  grouped,  and  the  scattering  of  light  and  shade  is  accomplished 
with  dexterity.  As  a composition  this  is  perhaps  the  best  surviving 
picture  by  our  artist.  Owing  to  its  fragile  nature  it  has  suffered 
a good  deal  in  four  centuries.  1527  was  the  year  in  which  Lucas, 
now  a rich  man  as  wealth  was  counted  in  those  days,  went  off 
on  that  festive  journey  which  was  to  be  as  disastrous  to  his  health 
as  was  Diirer’s  visit  to  Zealand  to  his.  Both  artists  thus  laid 
what  was  probably  a malarious  foundation  for  the  sickness  of  their 
remaining  years.  From  this  time,  therefore,  we  must  expect  to 
observe  a decline  of  power.  We  note  the  first  sign  of  it  in  a Virgin 
and  Child  of  1528  once  in  the  Kaufmann  Collection.*  The  little 
strutting  Hercules  with  the  ugly  head,  whom  we  are  asked  to  accept 
as  the  infant  Christ,  is  surely  some  distant  cousin  of  the  offspring 
of  Michelangelo.  He  proclaims  the  advent  at  Leyden  of  an  influence 
definitely  Italian.  It  is  a sign  of  the  artist’s  failing  power  that  the 
painting  is  inferior  in  design  to  the  admirable  first  idea  of  it  preserved 
in  a drawing  in  the  British  Museum.  The  Child  stands  on  a table, 
which  also  carried  a plant  in  a pot — a Flemish  convention.  A 
further  sign  of  change  in  Lucas’  ideals  is  the  engraving  (B.  138)  of 
Venus  dated  in  this  same  year.  It  is  inscribed  “ Venus  latresbelle 
Deese  damours,”  and  the  character  of  the  nude  is  of  the  sleek 
sort  they  were  going  to  admire  at  Fontainebleau.  Now  it  was 
that  our  artist  engraved  the  decorative  plates  with  arabesques  and 
other  Renaissance  fantasies,  a kind  of  design  in  which  no  Northerner 
of  that  day  was  the  equal  of  the  Italians.  I suspect  that  contact 
with  Mabuse  was  largely  responsible  for  this  change  in  Lucas’ 
artistic  deviation.  Surely  the  Mars  and  Venus  (B.  137)  of  1530 

* Another  half-length  Madonna  of  not  much  earlier  date  is  in  the  Schloss  Collection, 
and  shows  a tendency  in  the  Child’s  figure  toward  the  muscularly  developed  forms  so 
prominent  in  the  picture  of  1528. 


484 


LUCAS  VAN  LEYDEN 


would  not  have  been  engraved  if  Lucas  and  Mabuse  had  not  met. 
The  stiff  straight  leg  of  each  of  the  divinities  is  notable  as  an 
individual  touch,  a trick  of  preference  manifested  in  what  was 
perhaps  the  artist’s  earliest  published  work,  the  Adam  and  Eve 
(B.  7),  noticed  at  the  beginning  of  this  chapter.  It  is  almost  as 
though  he  had  taken  that  design  in  hand  and  redrawn  it  as  a measure 
of  his  advance  from  boyhood.  The  attraction  of  Italy  made  him 
study  the  work  of  Marcantonio,  the  third  of  the  trio  of  great 
engravers  then  alive.  The  unfortunate  effect  of  an  ill-judged 
imitation  is  seen  in  the  coarse  and  unattractive  series  of  Virtues 
(B.  127-133),  with  which  we  take  leave  of  his  prints.  Perhaps 
he  engraved  them  in  the  sick  bed  which  Van  Mander  asserts  he  seldom 
quitted  during  the  last  six  years  of  his  life. 

A word  in  conclusion  may  be  said  about  two  more  pictures 
which  belong  to  this  period.  The  first,  at  Amsterdam,  is  of  a 
congregation  attending  to  a preacher— a strangely  poor  composition 
for  so  gifted  an  artist.  They  sit  or  stand  half  within,  half  without 
an  impossible  and  ill-designed  building,  women  seated  on  the  ground 
in  front,  men  standing  behind  in  a row  which  too  rapidly  reduces 
in  scale  as  it  recedes.  Some  of  the  heads  have  character  and  some 
may  be  portraits,  but  Bock’s  imagined  likeness  of  one  of  them  to 
the  painter  cannot  be  upheld.^  Far  better,  so  much  better  that 
it  may  be  asked  whether  the  estimated  date  1531  may  not  be  too 
late,  is  the  Healing  of  the  Blind,  which  is  in  the  Hermitage  (No.  167). 
More  than  half  of  each  wing  has  disappeared,  but  the  central  panel 
remains.  Here  we  again  have  a crowded  assemblage  gathered 
into  two  animated  groups,  with  the  active  figures  in  the  centre. 
Michelangelo  legs  are  not  too  prominent.  The  story  is  told  in 
the  best  Dutch  narrative  fashion.  There  is  variety  in  pose  and 
character  ; the  artist’s  inventiveness  is  exemplified  unimpaired. 
The  landscape  background  is  extensive  but  disintegrated.  It 
contains  good  elements  of  tree,  rock,  and  glade,  but  ill-combined. 
Lucas  was  never  a good  landscape  painter.  His  interest  in  men 
was  greater  than  in  nature ; here  it  is  upon  human  actors,  their 
build,  their  qualities,  their  emotions  and  reactions  on  one  another 
that  his  interest  was  concentrated. 

Thus  self-expressed,  self-justified,  self-judged  we  may  leave 

1 Monatshefte  f.  K.,  iii,  p.  90. 


HIS  DEATH 


485 


him,  with  the  work  he  was  to  do  accomplished,  the  high  reputation 
that  was  to  be  his  attained.  In  the  last  few  days  of  his  life  his 
first  grandchild  scrambled  into  the  world  the  artist  was  quitting. 
Shortly  before  he  died,  feeling  his  end  near,  he  had  himself  carried 
out  of  doors  that  he  might  once  more  behold  the  vault  of  heaven. 
Two  days  later  he  was  dead,  being  then,  as  I suppose,  a little  more 
than  40  years  old.  It  is  hardly  just  to  the  record  of  Lucas  van 
Leyden  to  assert  that  he  had  already  reached  and  fallen  back  from 
the  highest  elevation  possible  to  him,  because  his  years  of  sickness 
and  physical  decline  were  marked  by  a diminution  of  artistic  power. 
On  the  contrary,  it  appears  that,  in  or  about  1527,  his  eyes  were 
opened  to  a new  aspect  of  men  and  things.  It  is  true  that  power 
was  lacking  to  avail  himself  of  the  fresh  opportunity,  so  that  what 
he  fashioned  in  this  new  direction  did  not  rise  beyond  the  level 
of  imitation.  In  all  the  rest  of  his  life  he  had  assimilated  and 
recreated  and  had  not  baldly  imitated  the  suggestive  work  of  other 
masters.  If,  in  the  last  stage,  assimilation  was  incomplete  and 
the  fountain  of  original  creation  ran  low,  it  was  in  consequence 
of  failing  physical  health,  not  of  intellectual  and  imaginative 
exhaustion.  Cut  away  the  output  of  these  six  years  and  enough 
remains  to  exalt  his  reputation  to  a high  though  not,  indeed,  the 
highest  level,  and  at  least  to  justify  the  claim  that  he  was  the 
greatest  of  Dutch  artists  of  the  early  period  who  laid  the  foundation 
on  which  the  vast  and  splendid  superstructure  of  seventeenth 
century  Dutch  painting  was  reared. 


CHAPTER  XXXII 


PETER  BRUEGEL  ^ 

The  last  artist  whose  work  the  reader  will  be  invited  here  to 
consider  is  the  great  man,  the  very  great  man,  whose  name  stands 
at  the  head  of  this  chapter.  It  is  a name  of  repute  in  the  history 
of  art ; but  the  first  painter  to  give  it  prominence,  and  far  the 
greatest  among  upward  of  a score  of  his  descendants  who  were 
painters,  has  by  no  means  yet  received  from  the  general  public  the 
high  recognition  which  is  his  due.  He  stands  at  the  end,  as  the 
Van  Eycks  at  the  beginning,  of  the  series  of  artists  who  expressed 
the  glory  of  the  Netherlands  in  the  first  period  of  their  high  civili- 
zation, and  his  is  as  eminent  a figure  as  that  of  the  founders  of  the 
school.  He  was  one  of  the  world’s  great  painters  and  ranks  with 
the  foremost  of  every  age.  To  think  of  him  merely  as  a “ droll  ” 
is  to  do  him  injustice.  He  was  master  of  a broad  humanity  ; 
he  envisaged  mankind  from  the  humorous  as  from  the  pathetic 
and  many  other  sides.  Had  he  been  born  in  a city  and  of  the 
craftsman  class  he  could  not  have  escaped  the  bondage  of  tradition 
and  the  still  worse  slavery  of  fashion  at  a time  when  Humanism, 
a power  essentially  literary  and  exotic,  was  exercising  a destructive 
tyranny  over  art.  All  superior  persons  were  then  Humanistic 
and  imagined  themselves  artistic  likewise,  but  nothing  in  art  was 
ever  more  dead  than  Humanistic  pictures  and  designs.  They 
were  of  necessity  born  dead.  Fortunately  for  Bruegel  and  for  us, 
he  came  of  a peasant  stock,  sturdily  independent ; to  his  class 
and  to  Mother  Nature,  from  whom  her  peasant  children  never 
stray,  he  remained  loyal  all  his  days.  He  was  inaccessible  to 
scholarship,  and  remained  outside  the  range  and  influence  of 
superior  persons.  Their  ideas  never  penetrated  him. 

We  know  nothing  of  his  life  beyond  what  Van  Mander  records, 

1 The  authority  on  Bruegel  is  R.  van  Bastelaer  and  G.  Hulin  de  Loo’s  Peter  Bruegel 
I'Aneien  : son  CEuvre  et  son  Temps,  Brussels,  1907. 


HIS  ORIGIN 


487 


but  that  little  can  be  relied  on,  for  he  probably  knew  Bruegel’s 
sons,  and  the  information  gathered  by  so  industrious  a collector 
of  facts  must  have  come  directly  or  indirectly  from  them.  It  is 
true  they  were  but  young  children  when  their  father  died,  but 
their  mother  who  brought  them  up  and  who  was  herself  a painter 
and  the  daughter  of  a painter  would  not  blunder  over  so  simple 
a record.  We  have  to  make  our  conclusions  harmonize  with  Van 
Mander’s  statements  ; it  is  not  permissible  to  alter  his  statements 
to  match  our  observations. 

Peter  Bruegel,  then,  was  born  in  the  Brabantine  country 
some  time  between  the  years  1525  and  1530.  He,  or  at  least  his 
family,  must  have  come  from  one  of  the  villages  named  Bruegel. 
There  are  two  from  which  the  reader  may  choose : one  near 
Bois-le-Duc  in  North  Brabant,  the  country  of  Jerome  Bosch  ; 
the  other  in  the  Belgian  Campine  in  the  Limburg  province.  It 
is  tempting  to  accept  the  former  off-hand  because  of  the  close 
dependence  of  Bruegel’s  art  at  a certain  period  upon  the  traditions 
of  Bosch.  That,  however,  was  not  his  first  period.  There  is  no 
sign  of  a Bosch  influence  in  his  earliest  works.  Van  Mander  says 
that  he  became  the  pupil  of  Peter  Coeck,  and  so  it  must  have  been, 
though  we  cannot  trace  any  impression  of  that  artist  upon  him  ; 
we  may  count  the  fact  a proof  of  the  sturdiness  of  his  individuality. 
In  Peter  Coeck’s  workshop  he  acquired  the  use  of  his  tools  and  the 
methods  of  his  craft,  beside  dandling  in  his  arms  the  master’s 
little  daughter  who  years  later  was  to  become  his  own  wife.  Coeck 
died  in  1550  ; Peter  did  not  become  a Master  in  the  guild  till  1551. 
He  seems  to  have  filled  up  the  interval  by  working  for  Jerome 
Cock,  whose  brother  Mathias  was  a good  landscape  painter. 
We  referred  to  the  Cocks  in  a previous  chapter,  and  to  a landscape 
drawing  at  Berlin  which  may  be  the  handiwork  of  Mathias.  One 
of  Bruegel’s  early  landscape  drawings  bears  a marked  resemblance 
to  it.  I suspect  that  in  Jerome  Cock’s  studio  Bruegel  first  found 
real  help.  Cock  was  an  engraver  and  a great  publisher  of  en- 
gravings. When  Bruegel  was  with  him  landscape  engravings  were 
being  issued,  and  it  was  as  a landscape-draughtsman  that  Bruegel 
made  his  debut.  His  debt  to  the  Cocks  may  therefore  have  been 
considerable,  but  till  we  know  more  about  them  our  materials  for 
an  estimate  are  insufficient. 


488 


PETER  BRUEGEL 


Jerome  Cock  had  only  returned  from  Italy  in  1548  ; perhaps 
it  was  his  talk  that  kindled  in  Bruegel  the  desire  to  go  there. 
At  any  rate,  in  1552  he  started  off  on  his  wanderings  through 
France  and  over  the  Alps.  Existing  drawings  enable  us  to  follow 
his  tracks.  There  is  no  sign  in  them  of  his  having  paid  attention 
to  anything  abroad  except  landscape.  It  has  been  suggested 
that  he  derived  profit  from  study  of  the  landscapes  of  Titian  ; I 
can  perceive  no  trace  of  the  Titianesque  in  his  work,  and  can, 
at  most,  imagine  superficial  resemblances  to  landscapes  of 
the  Campagnolas.  The  most  evident  deduction  from  his  extant 
drawings  of  the  years  1552  and  1553  is  that  Bruegel  developed 
himself  upon  his  own  lines  and  owed  little  to  outside  influences 
either  home  or  foreign.  In  the  face  of  Nature,  it  was  his  endeavour 
to  portray  her,  as  a man  would  portray  the  likeness  of  his  mistress. 
The  moment  and  the  point  of  view  were  his  own  choice,  the  subject 
was  what  his  eye  then  beheld.  Coming  from  Antwerp  he  could  but 
be  attracted  by  wide-spreading  or  deeply  extending  vistas,  especially 
such  as  were  beheld  from  elevated  situations.  For  many  years 
he  was  captive  to  the  high  point  of  view.  Yet  his  studies  present 
exceptions,  and  the  earliest  look  upward  from  a low  level.  We 
find  him  among  the  foothills  on  both  sides  of  the  Alps,  but  not  in 
the  heart  of  them.  That  is  our  misfortune.  Time  has  robbed  us 
of  those  truly  Alpine  studies  which  were  known  to  Van  Mander, 
whose  rudely  stated  opinion  was  that  in  traversing  the  Alps  Bruegel 
swallowed  the  mountains  and  rocks  to  vomit  them  forth  later  upon 
his  canvasses  and  panels.  He  went  or  returned  by  way  of  the 
St.  Gothard,  for  Rubens  possessed  a picture  of  that  pass  by  him. 
A delicate  and  painstaking  drawing  at  Dresden  is  of  the  junction 
of  two  mountain  rivers  just  emerged  from  their  defiles.  It  is 
almost  Alpine,  but  the  plains  are  near.  In  another  at  Berlin  we 
are  down  among  the  fertile  undulations  of  a district  like  the  Brianza. 
A couple  of  engravings  made  at  Rome  in  1553  depict  navigable 
rivers  watched  by  such  hills  as  guard  the  Rhine.  In  one  or  two 
cases  we  find  careful  studies  of  mountain  form  like  that  crest  which 
Diirer  drew  so  truthfully  near  Lake  Garda,  but  the  bulk  of  Bruegel’s 
sketches  in  this  kind  are  lost.  At  Rome,  when  he  drew  the  Cascade 
of  Tivoli  the  swirling  of  the  waters  so  impressed  him  that  he  made 
the  rocks  swirl  in  company  ! Thence  he  travelled  south  to  Naples 


HIS  TRAVELS 


489 


and  drew  its  bay  and  the  straits  further  south  with  Reggio  on  one 
side  and  Messina  beneath  the  cone  of  Etna  on  the  other.  The 
sketches  are  lost,  but  recorded  by  a picture  painted  from  one  of 
them  (in  the  Doria  Gallery,  phot.  Anderson,  5379)  and  an  engraving, 
dated  1561,  of  a redrawing  of  the  other.  Perhaps  then  he  also  made 
studies  of  ships,  such  as  those  accurately  drawn  galleys  with  lateen 
sails  which  must  always  have  been  commoner  in  southern  than 
in  northern  seas  ; but  I suspect  that  the  great  and  to  our  vision 
cumbrous  sailing  vessels  with  their  high  poops,  their  masts,  yards, 
crow’s-nests,  cordage,  guns,  and  other  fittings,  were  drawn  at  leisure 
beside  the  Scheldt  before  and  after  the  Italian  journey.  In  1565 
Frans  Huys  engraved  a set  of  them  from  Bruegel’s  designs.  Similar 
ships  are  in  the  Straits  engraving  of  1561,  which  depicts  a fine  sea- 
fight  and  is  a document  of  high  importance  in  naval  history. 
They  appear  again  with  guns  firing  in  the  spirited  painting  of 
Naples,  itself  perhaps,  as  Friedlander  suggests,  one  of  Bruegel’s 
earliest  existing  works  with  the  brush,  or  a copy  of  such. 

It  has  been  said  that  Bruegel  must  have  returned  home  by 
way  of  Tyrol,  because  of  the  character  of  some  of  the  landscapes 
engraved  after  drawings  made  by  him  on  the  way.  I find  no  such 
evidence.  The  most  characteristic  view  is  that  in  the  print  entitled 
Magdalene  poenitens,  from  the  insignificant  figure  of  the  Saint  tucked 
away  in  it.  We  see  the  road  to  some  important  pass  quitting  a 
main  valley  and  turning  up  the  gorge  of  a branch,  as  the  Simplon 
road  branches  off  at  Brieg  or  the  Great  St.  Bernard  at  Aosta  and  at 
Martigny,  but,  though  this  view  possesses  points  in  common  with 
both,  it  does  not  seem  to  be  identical  with  either.  If  an  identifica- 
tion I shall  propose  later  on  is  upheld,  Bruegel  must  have  returned 
by  one  of  these  passes,  unless  he  took  his  way  over  the  St.  Gothard 
and  the  Furka.  He  was  back  home  in  safety  at  Antwerp  in  time 
to  draw  an  animated  skating  scene  on  the  canals  just  outside  St. 
George’s  Gate  of  that  city.  Jerome  Cock  had  it  engraved  and 
thus  inscribed  on  its  second  state  : “ P.  Bruegel  delineavit  et  pinxit 
ad  vivum  1553.”  This  said  gateway  was  then  but  seven  years 
old,  and  the  citizens  were  probably  proud  of  it,  for  it  was  the  latest 
thing  in  fashionable  architecture,  having  been  built  by  the  Italian 
Donato  Boni  Pellezuoli  of  Bergamo  ; and  the  first  man  to  pass 
through  it  had  been  Charles  V.  Vandals  knocked  it  down  in  1866  ! 


490 


PETER  BRUEGEL 


It  is  notable  that  the  only  Italian  element  in  Bruegel’s  design  is 
the  gateway.  There  is  not  the  faintest  trace  of  an  Italian  element 
in  the  figures,  which  are  as  Flemish  as  can  be.  Nor  do  they  hang 
on  to  any  other  artist’s  style — as  little  to  Bosch  as  to  another  ; 
they  are  drawn  from  the  life  under  no  previously  formed  convention. 
More  of  them,  I think,  turn  their  backs  on  us  than  their  faces  ; 
it  is  the  silhouette  that  the  artist  has  most  seriously  striven  to  catch. 
There  is  a touch  of  rather  coarse  humour  in  one  group.  The 
whole  thing  is  vital  and  vivid.  It  marks  the  artist’s  interest  as 
fully  satisfied  by  the  world  of  men  and  women  of  his  own  class. 
Other  sketches  made  during  the  next  year  or  two  show  him  studying 
the  villages  and  country  scenery  of  the  Netherlands.  None  was 
the  work  of  more  than  a single  sitting,  and  the  few  that  remain 
probably  represent  a larger  number  that  have  vanished.  As  time 
went  on  he  contracted  the  width  of  his  views,  making  them  less 
panoramic  and  each  a more  perfect  unity,  but  a close  adherence  to 
the  thing  seen  remained  the  law  of  his  nature-study. 

Jerome  Cock  published  a set  of  thirteen  “ great  landscapes  ” 
after  Bruegel  in  or  about  1554-5  (twelve  to  match  and  one  larger), 
and  he  was  to  publish  more,  but  during  the  years  1556-8  he  had 
other  work  for  his  able  and,  no  doubt,  already  valued  assistant. 
This  was  to  redraw  for  engraving  a number  of  compositions  by 
Jerome  Bosch,  whose  work  was  then  very  popular.  We  thus  reach 
our  artist’s  second  period.  It  is  evident  that  he  found  Bosch  much 
to  his  taste  and  yielded  himself,  for  the  first  time  and  willingly, 
to  the  influence  of  that  great  master.  Where  the  two  came  closest 
they  are  still  far  asunder,  but  there  were  elements  in  Bosch  that 
found  a ready  response  in  Bruegel,  and  for  a time  he  not  only 
translated  but  imitated  him.  Landscape  now  took  a subordinate 
place  or  was  wholly  absent  from  his  designs,  and  his  attention  was 
bent  upon  figures.  Of  Bruegel’s  redrawings  of  Bosch’s  compositions 
we  need  say  little.  They  were  neatly  and  cleanly  done,  and  the 
engravers  did  their  best  to  copy  them  line  for  line.  A good  example 
is  the  Little  Fishes  Swallowed  by  the  Big,  a kind  of  version  of 
“ Big  fleas  have  little  fleas  upon  their  back  to  bite  ’em,”  but  it 
must  be  confessed  that  the  joke  was  a trifle  ponderous  and  none 
too  plain.  Another,  perhaps,  was  the  blind  man  leading  his  fellow 
into  a ditch,  a design  Bruegel  was  to  remember. 


INFLUENCED  BY  BOSCH 


491 


If  he  had  only  copied  the  old  designs  the  matter  would  be  of 
little  moment,  but  he  went  further  ; he  imbibed  a good  deal  of 
Bosch’s  spirit  and  was  attracted  to  treat  similar  subjects,  such  as 
the  illustration  of  Flemish  proverbs,  in  a broadly  humorous  fashion. 
Thus  he  painted  a picture  of  the  operation  on  a Fool’s  head  to 
extract  the  stone,  a subject,  it  will  be  remembered,  illustrated  by 
Bosch,  Bruegel’s  version,  dated  1556,  was  in  the  von  Gerhard 
Collection  at  Budapest.  “ Even  the  schools  of  Paris  can’t 
make  a horse  out  of  an  ass  ” may  also  be  taken  as  an  example 
of  one  of  Bruegel’s  early  efforts  in  this  kind.  The  engraving  is 
of  1557,  the  design  perhaps  a year  earlier,  that  being  the  usual 
sequence  where  both  design  and  engraving  exist  and  are  dated. 
We  are  shown  the  interior  of  a village  school  with  an  ass  in 
the  background  pondering  a sheet  of  music.  The  children  are  a 
noisy  and  unruly  lot,  some  in  the  attitudes  of  Bosch’s  devils. 
Two  of  them  are  crouched  under  a huge  hat  with  a yard  of  peacock- 
feather  sticking  up  from  it.  The  composition  is  rudimentary, 
a mere  huddle  of  kids,  but  the  whole  is  entertaining  and  may  well 
have  hit  the  popular  taste  in  its  day.  So  may  the  plate  of  the 
Pedlar  Robbed  by  Monkeys.  “ Le  Doyen  de  Renaix  ” is  a version 
of  the  Stones  of  Folly,  which  Bosch  illustrated  in  a painting,  and 
there  are  reasons  for  thinking  that  Bruegel  also  painted  the  original 
of  the  print.  The  Patience  engraved  in  1557  and  the  series  of  Vices 
then  also  designed  are  more  elaborately  in  the  manner  of  Bosch, 
replete  with  inventions  and  ingenuities  like  his  which,  for  the  most 
part,  now  leave  us  cold.  They  are  crowded  compositions,  lacking 
unity  of  any  kind,  but  full  of  incident  which  greatly  pleased  the  folk 
for  whom  they  were  made,  who,  no  doubt,  bought  them  “ like 
hot  buns.”  The  drawings  are  more  attractive  than  the  rather 
crude  engravings,  mostly  from  the  hand  of  Peter  van  der  Heyden. 
“ Sloth  ” is  one  of  the  best  and  most  Rabelaisian.  When  we  come 
to  the  Battle  between  the  Money-boxes  and  the  Safes,  the  meaning 
of  the  humorous  allegory  is  obscure  enough,  but  we  find  in  the 
composition  a decorative  hurly-burly  which  should  be  pleasing  to 
persons  of  cubist  taste.  It  would  be  a brilliant  design  for  an 
“ Omega  ” table-top.  The  last  composition  of  this  sort  we  need 
delay  over  is  the  Last  Judgment  of  1558,  like  all  the  rest  entirely 
unconventional.  The  people  in  the  sky  are  unimpressive,  even 


492 


PETER  BRUEGEL 


insignificant,  but  the  great  streams  of  human  beings  below,  flowing 
away  in  opposite  directions,  both  sorts  alike  terrified  and  visibly 
uncomfortable  in  their  nakedness,  form  a decidedly  novel  rendering 
of  a subject  that  had  been  hackneyed  for  a century.  These  and  their 
companion  plates  and  designs  were,  however,  merely  preparatory. 
They  were  “ pot-boilers  ” done  to  the  order  of  Jerome  Cock 
and  made  to  sell.  Till  this  stage  of  Bruegel’s  career  was  over  he  had 
not  really  found  himself,  but  the  moment  of  that  great  discovery 
was  near  at  hand. 

Two  plates,  entitled  the  “Cuisine  maigre”  and  the  “Cuisine 
grasse,”  both  designed  in  1558  though  not  published  till  1563,  will 
serve  to  exemplify  the  stage  of  transition.  The  subjects  are  alle- 
gorical, but  the  actual  scenes  are  derived  from  peasant  life  in  the 
kitchens  of  farm-houses.  Bosch  had  designed  a farm-house  festivity 
in  a kitchen,  and  the  drawing  was  probably  known  to  Bruegel,  for 
Cock  published  a print  of  it  in  1567.  Bruegel’s  designs  were  not, 
like  that,  direct  representations  of  peasant  scenes,  but  caricatures, 
the  folk  in  one  being  abnormally  lean,  in  the  other  abnormally  fat. 
A painting  of  three  heads  in  the  Copenhagen  Museum  may  have 
been  done  about  this  time  or  rather  later.  The  fat  head  is  being 
bitten  by  one  of  the  lean  pair,  and  the  other  is  ready  to  attack.  ‘ 
They  are  man  and  wife  and  may  well  have  sprung  from  the  maigre 
meal,  while  the  fat  man  might  be  the  same  who  is  so  hurriedly 
escaping  through  the  door  from  the  repulsive  table.  Thus,  by  an 
easy  transition,  we  reach  the  folk  scenes  pure  and  simple,  drawn  in 
this  same  year  1558,  the  Rustic  Wedding  Dance  and  St.  George’s 
Fair,  both  full  of  life  and  evidently  created  with  relish.  The  latter 
claims  comparison  with  the  Skating  Scene  of  1553  and  shows  what 
considerable  progress  in  draughtsmanship  and  knowledge  of  man 
Bruegel  had  made  in  five  years.  He  had  kept  his  eyes  open, 
and  stored  his  memory  with  the  aspects  of  rough  folk  in  moments 
of  gaiety.  He  knew  how  they  played,  sat,  danced,  drank,  gesticu- 
lated. The  look  of  them  was  as  delightful  to  him  as  that  of 
angels  to  Fra  Angelico.  Such  results  are  not  arrived  at  without 
taking  thought.  They  involve  long  and  sympathetic  observation. 
Van  Mander  luckily  records  that  Bruegel  about  this  time  had  an 

1 A drawing  by  Thomas  Rowlandson,  evidently  suggested  by  this  picture,  was  exhibited 
at  the  Burlington  Fine  Arts  Club  in  January  1917. 


HIS  PEASANT  STUDIES 


493 


excellent  friend  at  Antwerp,  one  Hans  Frankert  of  Nuremberg, 
like-minded  with  himself.  It  was  a common  sport  for  the  two  to 
disguise  themselves  as  peasants  and  go  off  to  village  fairs  and 
weddings,  where  they  offered  their  gifts,  pretending  to  be  distant 
relations  of  the  bridegroom  or  bride.  Frankert  ordered  pictures 
of  the  artist ; the  Copenhagen  heads  might  have  been  done  for  him. 

The  Fete  of  Fools  and  the  Sorceress  of  Malleghem  are  plates 
instinct  with  the  same  spirit,  caricatures  of  scenes  and  personages 
actually  beheld,  but  the  closer  Bruegel  adhered  to  life  the  better 
was  his  work  and  the  more  universal  its  appeal.  Hence  the  delight 
which  all  will  find  in  the  admirable  series  of  studies  of  individual 
peasants  on  some  surviving  pages  of  his  sketchbooks — ^the  very 
volumes  that  must  have  accompanied  him  and  Frankert  on  those 
unconventional  expeditions.  Examples  are  to  be  found  in  several 
Continental  print-rooms.  They  manifest  the  peasant  as  he  actually 
was,  in  the  clothes  he  wore  with  all  their  ragged  edges,  their 
patches,  and  their  practical  sufficiency.  Indeed,  it  is  the  clothes 
with  the  bodies  inside  them  much  more  than  the  faces  that  these 
studies  are  concerned  about,  and  there  are  manuscript  notes  of  the 
colours  added  in  the  painter’s  neat  handwriting.  Sometimes 
they  are  lightly  tinted,  but  generally  mere  outlines  in  pen-and-ink, 
with  emphasis  on  the  silhouette  and  slight  indications  of  fold  and 
modelling.  The  Albertina  possesses  a delightful  study  of  a couple 
of  harnessed  farm-horses  with  a pole  between  them  and  a carter 
astride.  The  harness  is  treated  with  great  accuracy,  and  the  group- 
ing of  horses  and  man  is  first-rate.  The  carter,  as  so  often,  turns 
his  back  so  that  there  might  be  no  mistake  in  the  record  of  his 
cap.  If,  as  Van  Mander  notes,  “ it  is  marvellous  to  see  how  well 
Bruegel  understood  to  clothe  his  peasants  in  the  fashion  of  the 
Campine  or  elsewhere  and  to  render  their  attitudes,  their  bearing, 
their  way  of  dancing,”  these  sketches  may  be  cited  as  showing  how 
that  capacity  was  acquired  and  enriched.  Neglect  of  faces  in  the 
costume-studies  was  supplemented  by  careful  water-colour  portraits 
of  characteristic  heads,  such  as  a pair  on  two  sides  of  a leaf  at 
Dresden.  Only  Hugo  van  der  Goes  had  so  thoroughly  entered 
into  the  peasant  nature,  but  he  also  was  a great  genius. 

There  is  in  the  Albertina  a capital  drawing  by  Bruegel  of  uncer- 
tain date — half-lengths  of  a bearded  painter  and  a comic  spectacled 

33 


494 


PETER  BRUEGEL 


critic  with  a long  humpy  nose  and  a mouth  like  a gap  for  a wedge. 
If  only  these  two  had  been  our  artist  and  his  friend — but  that  can 
hardly  be.  The  painter  here  is  old,  and  Bruegel  must  still  have 
been  young.  He  was  at  the  earliest  margin  of  his  maturity,  still 
probably  on  the  spring  side  of  30.  Unfortunately,  we  have  no 
likenesses  of  him  worth  a rap.  There  is  an  engraving  by  Sadeler 
after  a painted  bust-portrait  by  Spranger,  but  what  could  such 
men  have  in  common,  with  Peasant  Bruegel  ? The  frame  with 
its  classic  genii  was  what  really  interested  the  artist,  the  oval 
contained  portrait  being  a mere  piece  of  property.  Surely  Bruegel’s 
hair  was  never  so  well  brushed,  nor  his  long  beard  so  tidily  trimmed. 
We  have  to  fall  back  on  Van  Mander’s  written  description  of  him — 
“ a man  tranquil  and  orderly,  speaking  little  yet  amusing  in 
company,  delighting  to  horrify  people  and  particularly  his  pupils 
with  tales  of  ghosts  and  banshees.”  He  lived  with  a servant-maid 
and  would  have  married  her,  but  she  was  such  an  inveterate  and 
incurable  liar  that  he  changed  his  mind,  whether  for  better  or  worse 
who  can  say  ? 

In  and  after  the  year  1558  Bruegel  devoted  himself  with  increas- 
ing steadiness  to  the  painting  of  pictures  ; at  all  events,  it  is  from 
then  onward  that  his  extant  pictures  date.  He  may  have  painted 
in  tempera  on  canvas  in  earlier  years  pictures  of  which  no  record 
has  survived.  Works  in  that  technique  have  for  the  most  part 
perished  ; a few  by  Bruegel  are  known  and  others  suspected  from 
copies.  A brilliant  fragment  at  Vienna,  of  about  this  date,  is 
all  that  remains  of  a tempera  painting  on  canvas.  Copies  preserve 
the  complete  composition.  It  depicts  a riotous  crowd  of  folk, 
eager  for  free  drinks,  piling  themselves  up  over  an  erection  that 
supports  a barrel  of  wine  in  process  of  distribution.  Intoxicated 
individuals  fight,  dance,  or  sleep  on  the  outskirts.  It  is  the  festival 
of  Martinmas,  and  the  Saint  himself  rides  by  in  the  foreground 
mounted  on  a vigorous  white  steed  and  duly  slashing  his  cloak 
asunder.  To  analyse  or  describe  the  mound  of  struggling  drinkers 
of  both  sexes  would  be  waste  of  words,  but  their  variety,  their 
animation,  their  clever  and  intricate  interlockings  are  monstrously 
amusing  to  look  at.  Bruegel  loved  crowds  and  cataracts  of  folk. 
An  Adoration  of  the  Magi,  likewise  in  tempera,  whereof  the  Brussels 
Museum  preserves  the  larger  part,  was  seized  as  opportunity  for 


THE  PROVERBS 


495 


the  introduction  of  a throng  and  all  sorts  of  background  incidents. 
The  picture,  beside  being  abbreviated  above  and  at  the  sides,  is 
in  bad  condition,  but  a copy  at  Antwerp  (No.  847)  by  the  painter’s 
son  Peter  enables  a good  idea  to  be  formed  of  it.  Even  in  a Death 
of  the  Virgin  the  onlookers  seem  to  pour  into  the  room.  That  pic- 
ture no  longer  exists,  but  an  engraving  by  Philip  Galle  and  at  least 
one  painted  copy  are  known  (Fetis  sale,  1909,  No.  11). 

Religious  subjects,  specially  those  of  a mystic  sort,  were  not  in 
Bruegel’s  line  ; and  we  may  guess  that  he  never  painted  them  of  his 
own  accord.  Someone  must  have  commissioned  the  Resurrection, 
now  lost,  whereof  there  is  a copy  at  Liverpool  and  a good  engraving 
published  by  Cock.  The  interpreter  was  a new  hand  and  a far 
better  technician  than  Huys  or  Van  der  Hey  den,  who  engraved  most 
of  Bruegel’s  designs.  The  foreground  figures  are  good,  the  scene 
in  a rocky  enclosure  is  striking,  but  the  sacred  personages  con- 
structed according  to  rule  are  unconvincing.  The  same  anonymous 
engraver  also  produced  the  plates  of  the  Ten  Virgins  and  the  Virtues 
after  Bruegel’s  designs  about  this  time.  The  background  of  the 
Virgins  is  so  much  mere  formalism,  but  down  in  front  are  two 
groups  of  honest  peasant  women — the  Wise  at  their  spinning-wheels 
and  washing-tubs,  the  Foolish  dancing  and  bagpiping  on  the  green. 
The  Virtues,  as  they  were  to  be  well  engraved,  were  more  elaborately 
and  delicately  designed  than  usual ; they  possess  all  the  merits, 
horrors,  and  humours  of  incident  the  artist  could  give  them,  but 
he  must  have  found  the  work  unsatisfactory  after  his  plunge  into 
reality,  and  I suspect  him  to  have  been  counting  the  weeks  till 
he  could  free  himself  from  the  bondage  of  Cock  and  his  clients. 

A kind  of  half-way  house  between  allegorical  compositions 
and  studies  of  actual  peasant  life  was  afforded  by  illustrations 
of  Flemish  proverbs,  which  he  now  began  to  paint.  A dozen 
roundels  in  the  Mayer  van  den  Bergh  Collection  incorporate  each 
its  proverb — a man  falling  between  two  stools,  another  casting 
roses  before  swine,  a third  butting  his  head  against  a wall,  and  so 
forth.  They  are  dated  1558.  Less  formal  is  a more  elaborate 
picture  at  Berlin,  in  which  various  incidents  are  gathered  into 
a single  composition. ‘ I do  not  profess  to  understand  the  design 

1 Published  with  reproduction  by  Friedliinder  in  the  Zeits.  f.  b.  Kunst,  1913, 
pp.  9-12. 


496 


PETER  BRUEGEL 


called  Everyman,  even  after  reading  an  elaborate  explanation  of  it, 
but  I daresay  it  meant  a lot  to  Bruegel’s  eontemporaries.  It  is 
when  we  come  to  such  elaborate  paintings  as  the  comic  fight 
between  Carnival  and  Lent  (1559)  or  the  Children’s  Games  (1560), 
both  at  Vienna,  that  we  find  Bruegel  well  established  in  the  kingdom 
which  was  thenceforward  to  be  his  own.  Both  overflow  with 
ineident  as  lively  and  imaginatively  veracious  as  can  be.  One 
has  houses  for  baekground,  the  other  a long  street  and  a view  into 
the  country  ; we  are  coming  back  to  landscape  again  and  the 
wonderful  fresh  air  of  the  real  world  in  which  it  is  so  good  to  live. 
They  tell  me  that  there  are  about  200  children  in  the  games  picture, 
and  that  among  them  every  then  known  game  is  being  played. 
The  other  picture  contains  all  kinds  of  happenings  in  a town, 
from  a spring-cleaning  to  a church-serviee.  Anyone  would  like 
to  live  with  such  pictures.  They  are  brilliant  and  merry  in  colour, 
and  full  of  frolicsomeness  andyoie  de  vivre. 

It  was  not  mere  luck  that  brought  into  the  latter  that  bit  of 
eountry  background.  Bruegel  was  again  seriously  working  at 
landscape.  Now  it  was  that  he  redrew  the  Straits  of  Messina 
with  the  sea-fight,  published  by  Cock  in  1561,  and  made  the  set 
of  village  views,  twenty-seven  in  number,  also  published  in  the 
same  year.  A pleasing  example  of  such  drawings  is  in  New  York 
Museum  ; it  displays  the  picturesque  end  of  a village,  straggling 
out  along  the  road  from  well-built  gabled  houses  at  one  end  to 
tumbledown  thatched  cottages  at  the  other.  Close  parallels  to 
this  drawing  might  be  cited  from  Rembrandt.  Bruegel  also 
redrew  or  recomposed  some  mountain  scenes  at  this  time,  endowing 
them  with  a haze  of  romance  such  as  memory  easts  over  an  admired 
vision.  Romance  in  the  sixteenth  century  was  liable  to  denaturalize 
the  form  of  roeks  and  endow  them  with  an  impossible  architeeture, 
but  geology  was  unborn,  and  we  must  purge  our  minds  of  scienee 
to  see  these  views  as  people  saw  them.  Bruegel  had  begun  to 
fill  his  skies  with  features  : blazing  suns,  drifting  elouds,  darts  of 
light  and  sacks  of  shadow,  scarves  of  mist  round  the  necks  of 
peaks  and  atmosphere  enveloping  them.  I suspect  that  we  may 
here  place  the  wonderful  picture  of  a Storm  at  Sea  (Vienna,  No.  984), 
in  which  the  strong  gale  planes  off  or  beats  flat  the  tops  of  big 
waves,  as  one  oftener  beholds  far  out  in  the  ocean  than  near 


HIS  MARRIAGE 


497 


European  shores.  The  rain  drives  almost  horizontally ; sails 
belly  and  will  presently  rip  if  the  squall  continues  ; ships  are  in 
visible  distress,  but  the  white  gulls  swoop  about.  The  whale  in 
a trough  of  the  sea  is  the  one  false  touch,  but  he  is  waiting  there 
for  Jonah,  and  without  Jonah  a storm  would  hardly  have  been 
respectable  in  paint  ! A picture,  if  it  was  to  sell,  had  to  have  a 
name. 

A drawing  of  a Descent  into  Hades,  if  its  date  1561  be  genuine, 
is  a belated  composition  of  the  Bosch  type,  singularly  uninspired. 
I think  Bruegel  was  weary  of  designing  for  the  engravers,  at  any 
rate  for  the  heavy-handed  Peter  van  der  Heyden.  When  he 
made  the  Fall  of  Lucifer  a subject  for  his  brush,  as  in  the  picture 
of  1562  at  Brussels,  he  rose  to  much  higher  flights.  There  are  all 
kinds  of  Bosch  diahleries  in  this  also,  but  they  vanish  into  the 
complex  pattern  of  the  wonderful  whole,  which  the  smiting  angels 
dominate  with  their  wide  wings,  swirling  white  draperies,  and 
mighty  strokes.  The  details  are  no  longer  separate  or  separable  ; 
they  lose  their  individuality  in  the  general  effect,  as  the  cubes  in 
a mosaic.  Bruegel  was  no  great  student  of  insects.  He  made 
no  beetle  drawings,  such  as  the  Bruges  miniaturists  affected. 
But  this  time  he  has  endowed  a strange  beast  in  the  middle  of  his 
foreground  with  a pair  of  brilliantly  coloured  butterfly  wings,  and 
the  effect  on  the  whole  is  immense.  They  flare  out  like  Roman 
candles. 

His  landscape  studies  begin  to  affect,  and  with  increasing 
prominence,  the  composition  of  his  pictures.  The  Battle  between 
Jews  and  Philistines  (Vienna,  No.  721)  is  mainly  an  Alpine  landscape 
with  pine-trees  on  the  hillside.  The  battle  is  proceeding  in  a 
narrow  valley  or  gorge  that  winds  up  from  the  plain  ; we  get  the 
impression  of  a great  multitude  struggling  together.  The  Tower 
of  Babel  of  1563  (Vienna,  No.  715)  is  less  convincing,  the  folk  at 
work  being  like  ants  in  the  distance.  If  Bruegel  could  have  seen 
a New  York  sky-scraper  he  would  have  been  better  equipped  for 
this  class  of  subject.  These,  I think,  may  have  been  his  last  extant 
paintings  done  at  Antwerp,  for  in  this  same  year  (1563)  he  married 
Mary,  daughter  of  his  late  master,  Peter  Coeck  and  Maeyken 
Bessemers,  his  wife,  and  it  was  wisely  made  one  of  the  conditions 
of  the  union  that  he  should  leave  Antwerp  and  settle  at  Brussels 


498 


PETER  BRUEGEL 


near  his  mother-in-law.  The  liar  of  a housekeeper  was  forsaken 
and  the  old  life  broken  off : no  more  festive  expeditions  with 
Frankert ; no  more  visits  to  the  Antwerp  inns,  with  which  Bruegel 
must  surely  have  been  familiar.  Henceforward  he  was  to  be  a 
good  family  man,  and  there  were  two  honest  women  to  look 
after  him  and  incidentally  see  that  he  behaved  himself. 

A couple  of  designs  for  diableries  connected  with  St.  James 
and  Simon  Magus,  drawn  in  1564,  may  have  been  a kind  of  final 
offering  to  Cock.  The  atmosphere  they  made  our  artist  breathe 
led  to  his  painting  the  Mad  Meg,  or  Dulle  Greet,  now  in  the  Mayer 
van  den  Bergh  Collection,  and  the  Triumph  of  Death  in  the  Prado. 
They  are  a final  efflorescence  of  Boschism,  and  I will  not  waste 
words  in  the  vain  attempt  to  interpret  them,  but  they  are  wonderful 
works  in  their  way.  The  figure  of  that  wild  woman  striding  forward 
with  open  mouth,  sword  in  hand,  a jewel-case,  a frying-pan,  and  I 
know  not  what  else  under  the  other  arm,  the  mouth  of  Hell  gaping 
before  her  and  a child  hanging  on  to  her  skirts  behind,  is  much  more 
than  merely  astonishing.  I wonder  whether  the  mendacious  cook  was 
model  for  her  and  what  mother-in-law  Maeyken  thought  of  it  all. 
Perhaps  the  Critic  on  the  Hearth  was  not  so  pleased  as  friend  Frankert 
would  have  been,  and  suggestions  were  made,  perhaps  had  already 
been  made  in  the  months  succeeding  the  wedding,  that  it  would 
be  more  respectable  in  Brussels  to  paint  some  subjects  of  orthodox 
character.  That,  I like  to  imagine,  was  the  origin  of  the  very 
correct  Adoration  of  the  Magi  recently  added  to  the  National 
Gallery.  It  displays  no  multitude  of  onlookers  or  accompanying 
caravans,  but  just  the  chief  actors  gathered  together  in  the  fore- 
ground. The  faces  betray  their  creator  quickly  enough  by  the 
emphasis  of  their  expressions,  staring  as  they  do  with  eyes  wide 
opened  like  dished  oysters*  The  Child  shrinks  away  from  the 
first  hoary  old  king,  but  the  Mother  tells  him  not  to  mind.  It 
is  all  well  enough,  but  not  the  kind  of  work  Peasant  Bruegel  was 
cut  out  for.  Some  read  the  date  1563  and  others  1564.  The  latter, 
at  any  rate,  belongs  to  the  populous  Christ  bearing  the  Cross 
(Vienna,  712),  a picture  full  of  the  artist’s  best  originality.  Casting 
away  the  trammels  of  tradition,  he  endeavoured  to  conceive  how 
the  event  might  possibly  have  happened,  as  in  the  neighbourhood 
of  a large  town  in  his  own  country  and  time.  It  might  be  market- 


THE  ADORATION  OF  THE  MAGI 


499 


day,  and  a number  of  peasants  would  be  coming  in  from  the  villages 
with  their  goods  for  sale  ; there  would  be  a pedlar  by  the  roadside 
and  other  such  folk,  a human  stream  flowing  in  one  direction. 
In  the  other  would  go  a more  numerous  crowd  of  idlers  hurrying 
forth  to  form  a ring  round  the  well-known  place  of  execution  and 
watch  the  death  tragedy  of  two  malefactors  and  a public  character. 
Some  would  start  early  to  get  good  front  places  ; others  would 
be  late  and  would  come  running  from  the  city.  The  thieves, 
blanched  with  fear,  would  be  in  the  tumbril  drawn  by  an  old  horse 
and  accompanied  by  a few  soldiers  ; Christ  bearing  His  cross  would 
be  tottering  and  falling  just  behind.  Then  when  He  could  carry 
it  no  further  the  soldiers  would  lay  hands  on  the  nearest  stout 
peasant  and  impress  him  to  do  the  work,  but  his  wife  would  resist 
and  their  goods  would  fall  on  the  ground — the  lamb  and  other 
things  they  were  carrying  to  market.  There  would  be  a number 
of  dogs  and  idle  boys  about  and  some  important  persons  on  horse- 
back, all  which  Bruegel  knew  how  to  depict — none  better.  He 
put  Christ  a good  way  off  so  that  you  have  to  look  for  Him,  but  the 
weeping  women  must  also  come  in,  and  they  were  not  at  all  in  our 
painter’s  line.  He  brought  them  up  into  the  foreground,  but  lost  his 
head  over  them,  painting  them  on  too  large  a relative  scale ; in 
fact,  failing  with  them.  Otherwise  all  is  intensely  real  and  conveys 
the  spirit  of  the  event  as  never  before,  but  with  no  thought  or 
suggestion  of  its  mystical  significance. 

After  this  Bruegel  returned  to  contemporary  life  and  his 
peasantry  again,  having,  doubtless,  found  his  way  among  the 
villages  and  villagers  near  Brussels  as  before  near  Antwerp.  We 
may  be  sure  that  Bruegel  was  not  long  in  learning  of  the  strange 
goings-on  at  Mol enbeek-St.- Jean,  near  Brussels,  every  St.  John’s 
Day,  and  that  he  took  the  very  flrst  opportunity  of  being  present. 
The  day,  I take  it,  was  December  27,  1564,  but  there  are  quite 
a number  of  days  dedicated  to  a variety  of  St.  Johns.  At  all 
events,  the  drawing  he  made  shows  that  it  was  in  the  winter,  so 
that  we  may  guess  he  was  at  his  old  peasant-frequenting  tricks 
again  some  eighteen  months  after  his  marriage.  Epileptics,  it 
appears,  were  sacred  to  St.  John.  The  way  to  cure  them  was  to 
take  them  to  Molenbeek  on  the  Saint’s  day  and  make  them  dance 
around,  each  forcibly  conducted  by  a pair  of  friends,  and  finally 


500 


PETER  BRUEGEL 


dance  over  a little  bridge  or  jump  the  brook,  after  which  they  were 
cured  of  St.  John’s  sickness  for  one  year.  That  was  a subject 
after  Bruegel’s  heart,  and  his  drawing  in  the  Albertina  is  a valuable 
document.  Some  of  the  patients  resist,  others  are  tractable ; all 
are  as  mad  as  mad  can  be.  A couple  of  bagpipers  help  to  kindle 
enthusiasm.  One  party  is  just  crossing  the  bridge.  A fat  woman 
on  the  opposite  bank  sits  on  the  ground — exhausted  or  cured  ? 
The  church  is  faintly  outlined  behind  leafless  trees.  It  reappears, 
identifiable  by  its  square  east-end  and  other  features,  in  the  copy 
in  the  Max  Grisar  Collection  of  a lost  original.  The  village  is  now 
deep  under  snow  and  few  folk  are  about  except  just  outside  the  inn, 
where  a noisy  fight  of  drunken  peasants  is  going  on.  One  has  been 
rescued  from  the  fray  by  his  wife  and  child,  who  are  conducting 
him  home,  she  with  a good  deal  to  say  and  the  child  for  object- 
lesson. 

The  Bee-keepers  whom  he  drew  in  1565  must  have  pleased  him 
because  their  faces  were  hidden  behind  curious  netted  masks 
and  their  bodies  enveloped  in  long  tunics.  These  later  drawings 
are  more  delicate  and  spottily  detailed  than  the  drawings  of  the 
Antwerp  period,  the  foliage  being  suggested  by  a new  and  better 
convention  than  the  Cocks  could  teach  him.  In  1566  we  are  back 
again  among  landscapes  elaborately  constructed  but  on  the  old 
Patinir  formula  as  developed  by  two  generations  of  followers  : 
high  ground  on  the  left,  a river  below  coming  out  of  the  gorge  and 
winding  away  to  a great  distance  in  a wide  level  valley.  I imagine 
this  drawing  made  Mr.  Roger  Fry  suggest  that  the  National 
Gallery  river-landscape  might  be  by  old  Bruegel.  More  interesting  is 
the  landscape-etching  dated  1566,  Bruegel’s  one  and  only  known 
etched  plate  ; it  again  is  constructed  on  the  same  principles  of 
design,  but,  for  a great  wonder,  instead  of  a penitent  Magdalen 
or  Jerome  in  the  foreground  to  give  it  respectability,  here  are 
sportsmen  trying  to  shoot  rabbits  with  a erossbow,  which  may 
have  been  very  good  sport.  Just  so  have  many  of  us  in  our  youth 
hidden  up  behind  a bush  near  some  warren  to  pot  rabbits  through 
the  head  with  a pea-rifle. 

It  would  be  interesting  to  learn  whether  the  winter  of  1565-6 
was  very  cold  and  snowy.  An  admirable  snow-scene  in  a Braban- 
tine  village,  peopled  to  make  it  illustrate  the  Numbering  of  the  Folk 


THE  MONTHS 


501 


at  Bethlehem,  bears  that  date,  while  two  others,  a Massacre  of  the 
Innocents  and  an  honest  village  skating-scene  pretending  to  no 
religious  significance,  are  obviously  about  contemporary.^  The 
Brussels  picture  is  just  a village  folk-scene  with  people  crowding 
round  the  windows  of  an  inn  where  the  census  officials  are  at  work. 
In  the  foreground  a man  leads  an  ass  on  which  his  wife  is  mounted, 
and  you  can  guess  by  the  way  she  is  enveloped  in  a great  cloak 
that  she  is  keeping  her  baby  warm  within  it.  The  ox  of  the  Nativity 
is  also  going  along,  and  there  can  be  no  doubt  but  that  these  figures 
are  the  Holy  Family  starting  forth  for  their  Flight  into  Egypt. 
All  this,  however,  is  of  little  account.  What  the  eyes  rest  on  is  the 
village  in  its  glorious  mantle  of  snow  with  the  children  sliding, 
snowballing,  top-spinning,  the  men  at  their  winter  toil,  and  all 
the  incidents  proper  to  the  season,  but  subordinated  to  the  village 
unity  as  ants  to  an  ant-heap.  Even  more  beautiful  in  its  winter 
gloom  is  the  Massacre  of  the  Innocents,  but  full  of  horrid  cruelty 
and  pathos,  such  as  Belgium  has  suffered  from  a brutal  soldiery 
again  and  yet  again  in  the  tried  and  glorious  history  of  her 
provinces.' 

Here  may  best  be  inserted,  as  a group  of  works  begun  at  least 
by  1567,  the  four  admirable  pictures  of  months — all  that  were 
painted  or  that  survive  of  a probable  projected  dozen.®  In  each 
the  spectator  stands  on  high  ground  and  overlooks  extensive 
stretches  of  country,  with  the  usual  winding  river  in  three  of  them 
and  the  usual  mountains  shutting  it  in.  The  first  depicts  a stormy 
day  in  early  winter  (called  January).  Woodsmen  are  busy  chopping 
in  the  foreground  on  the  low  elevation  of  our  standing  place.  We 
look  down  upon  the  roofs  of  their  village  and  away  off  through 
a tracery  of  bare  branches  to  the  hills  that  border  the  winding 
and  turbulent  river.  There  is  snow  on  the  highest  levels  and  a 
rock  point  juts  out  of  it,  like  the  Dent  de  Jaman — in  fact,  they  are 
hills  of  the  kind  that  rise  from  the  Lake  of  Geneva.  A heavy 
wind-rent  sky  darkens  the  scene,  but  there  is  light  behind  the  hills, 

1 They  are  at  Brussels  (No.  680),  Vienna  (No.  710),  and  in  the  Doria  Gallery  respectively, 
the  last  only  a copy  by  Peter  II  Bruegel,  the  original  having  disappeared. 

2 A picture  dated  1566,  representing  John  Baptist  preacliing,  is  recorded  by  Fried- 
lander  as  in  Count  Batthiany’s  Collection  at  Csakany,  Hungary. 

® January,  February,  and  Autumn  (September?)  are  at  Vienna  (Nos.  711,  713,  and 
709)  ; June  belongs  to  Prince  Lobkowitz  at  Raudnitz  Castle. 


502 


PETER  BRUEGEL 


and  the  effect  is  altogether  truthful ; it  is  an  “ effect  ” gathered 
from  nature,  not  a mere  geographical  transcript.  We  must 
go  back  to  Hubert  van  Eyck  for  a parallel.  The  notion  of 
trying  to  render  an  “ effect  ” had,  indeed,  occurred  to  Bouts,  but 
he  failed  in  the  attempt.  Bruegel  succeeded.  Thus,  again,  is  it 
with  the  superb  “ Hunters  in  the  Snow,”  supposed  to  illustrate 
February,  in  all  respects  Bruegel’s  finest  landscape.  It  also  is 
very  Swiss.  The  cliff  faces  of  the  buttressing  hills  on  the  right  and 
the  foreshortening  which  brings  them  into  the  semblance  of  jutting 
peaks  are  admirable.  All  who  know  the  lower  Alpine  valleys  will 
find  themselves  here  amid  familiar  surroundings.  The  river 
empties  into  a lake,  and  there  is  a village  on  a far-away  promontory, 
and  in  the  midst  of  it  a church  spire  of  Swiss  type.  It  is  Villeneuve  ; 
we  are  looking  down  the  last  stretch  of  the  Rhone  Valley  to  the 
head  of  the  Lake  of  Geneva.  There  is  a smaller  village  at  our  feet, 
for  we  stand  on  the  lower  slopes  of  the  wide  valley’s  left  bank,  and 
two  splendid  skating-rinks  are  swept  clear  beside  it.  They  would 
not  disgrace  Miirren  to-day.  Hunters  and  their  dogs,  dark  silhouettes 
against  the  snow,  are  in  our  immediate  foreground.  Such  are  some 
of  the  details,  or  rather  factors,  composing  the  scene — for  they 
are  factors,  necessary  and  indissoluble  parts  of  the  whole,  which 
exists  not  by  their  assemblage  but  by  their  structural  and  emotional 
union.  They  form  together  one  thing  seen,  and  seen  through  a 
mood  of  an  individual  mind.  The  austerity,  the  latent  power 
beneath  this  stillness,  the  beauty,  the  utter  harmony  of  winter  is 
here,  not  the  lone  horrors  of  some  abandoned  arctic  region  where 
nature  has  herself  to  herself,  but  winter  in  its  relation  to  man, 
to  which  man  has  adjusted  himself  with  his  warmly  thatched 
houses,  his  thick  clothing,  his  winter  labours  and  winter  sports — 
a marvellous  picture,  indeed,  and  the  opening  of  a new  and  wonderful 
chapter  in  the  history  of  art.  Compare  it  with  the  February 
page  in  the  Hours  of  the  Duke  of  Berry,  where  the  snow  is  excellently 
painted;  the  enormous  difference  in  the  grasp  of  the  subject  as  a 
whole  will  be  immediately  apparent.  That  is  an  assemblage  of 
details  juxtaposed,  this  an  organic  unity  conceived  and  executed 
in  all  its  parts  under  the  governance  of  a single  idea. 

The  remaining  pair  of  landscapes  give  rise  to  similar  reflexions, 
but  are  less  convincing  in  their  treatment  of  the  structure  of 


THE  LAND  OF  COCKAIGNE 


503 


surroundings.  The  Autumn  picture  shows  the  return  of  the  cattle 
from  their  summer  pastures,  an  important  annual  incident  in  the 
life  of  a mountain  village.  The  haymaking  scene  that  stands  for 
June  brings  us  down  to  lower  regions  and  has  no  Swiss  character, 
but  neither  of  these  pictures  reminds  us  of  any  definite  district, 
both  landscapes  being  comparatively  artificial  in  structure.  Were 
it  not  for  the  date  1567  which  appears  to  be  clearly  marked  upon 
the  Conversion  of  St.  Paul  (Vienna,  No.  714),  we  should  have 
grouped  it  alongside  of  the  Battle  of  Jews  and  Philistines,  and  it 
may  be  used  as  proof  that  the  four  Months  were  not  begun  until 
that  picture  had  been  finished,  but  the  same  argument  would 
apply  to  the  village  snow-scenes  of  1566.  The  St.  Paul  would 
certainly  find  itself  in  more  suitable  company  in  1563-4  than 
down  here  in  1567  ; perhaps  it  was  laid  aside  for  a few  years  and 
only  finished  when  it  was  dated,  or  has  the  last  figure  of  the  date 
been  tampered  with  ? 

A picture  from  the  Seymour-Trower  Collection,  recently  sold  at 
Sotheby’s  (July,  1921 ; No.  243),  dates  from  this  period  of  Bruegel’s 
activity.  It  depicts  the  father  of  a family  in  a condition  of  unstable 
equilibrium  conducted  and  supported  from  an  ale-house  by  his 
wife  and  eldest  son.  The  youngest,  carrying  a hobby-horse,  hangs  on 
to  his  mother’s  spare  hand.  The  main  group  is  large  in  the  fore- 
ground and  brilliantly  coloured.  The  ale-house  door  is  some 
distance  away,  and  two  revellers  are  taking  a final  pull  at  a large 
jug,  while  another  stalwart  wife  is  dragging  one  of  them  off.  Pathos 
and  humour  unite  in  this  picture,  which  is  a characteristic  example 
of  Bruegel’s  best  work  in  this  kind. 

The  Land  of  Cockaigne  (Abundance)  now  in  the  Munich  Gallery 
opens  the  last  stage  in  the  development  of  Bruegel’s  art.  With  a 
single  exception  there  are  to  be  no  more  landscapes  embracing  vast 
distances,  no  more  multitudes  of  folk  scattered  abroad  over  fields 
and  villages ; henceforward  the  interest  is  to  be  concentrated  on 
a few  prominent  figures  in  the  foreground,  and  they  are  to  be  studied 
with  a detailed  intensity  not  called  for  before.  The  first  of  the  series 
is  least  characteristic  or  attractive,  for  the  good  reason  that  it 
is  least  spontaneous.  It  is  of  a kind  with  the  proverb-illustrations, 
a thing  constructed,  not  beheld.  The  fat  peasants  lying  on  the 
ground  in  gorged  content,  the  roast  pig  running  about  carrying  the 


504 


PETER  BRUEGEL 


knife  to  carve  him  with,  and  the  like  conceits,  may  have  given 
a moment’s  amusement  to  contemporary  spectators,  but  such  a 
subject  was  insufficient  to  afford  Bruegel’s  mature  powers  a worthy 
opportunity  or  to  unlock  the  rich  stores  of  his  accumulated  observa- 
tion. A print  (dated  1568)  of  a young  peasant  being  shoved  into 
a pigsty  was  probably  designed  about  the  same  time.  We  pass 
gladly  from  both  to  the  Wedding  Feast  (No.  717)  and  Peasant 
Dance  (No.  719)  at  Vienna,  in  which  Bruegel’s  comprehension  of 
peasant  life  as  a subject  for  pictorial  treatment  attains  fullest 
expression.  One  is  an  interior,  the  other  an  open-air  scene  ; both 
overflow  with  like  merits.  There  are  just  enough  people  in  the 
backgrounds  to  suggest  a goodly  throng  and  the  share  of  the  whole 
village  in  common  festivity,  but  our  interest  is  held  by  those  in 
front,  the  feasters,  pipers,  and  dancers,  realized  by  Bruegel  for  all 
the  worth  of  the  humanity  that  is  in  them.  The  types  are  varied 
enough,  but  it  is  the  expressions  that  prevail,  the  expressions 
not  of  countenance  merely  but  of  the  whole  figure.  These  vitalize 
the  pictures.  Observe  the  posture  of  the  bagpiper  at  the  banquet — 
how  his  feet  are  placed  and  his  knees  protrude,  and  how  he  watches 
what  is  going  on  with  slow,  unintelligent  observance.  It  is 
the  same  with  everyone  ; they  are  occupied  with  their  food,  their 
task,  or  one  another.  There  are  actions  and  reactions  throughout, 
characteristic,  energetic,  human.  Life  itself  could  not  more  truly 
live.  Verily  Bruegel  has  come  into  his  kingdom. 

The  legless  Beggars  of  the  Louvre  is  perhaps  his  masterpiece 
in  this  kind.  They  are  howling  for  alms  to  the  passer-by,  and 
making  the  worst  of  their  deformities.  Just  such  howling  unfortu- 
nates have  I seen  outside  the  Cathedral  of  Rio  de  Janeiro  ; they 
were  common  all  over  Europe  in  Bruegel’s  day.  How  admirably 
they  are  beheld,  without  sentimentality  but  with  a rich  under- 
standing which  descried  even  in  these  wrecks  the  traces  of  human 
worth  ! How  marvellously  they  are  composed  into  a group,  like 
so  many  grapes  on  a bunch  in  mutual  adjustment  of  place  and  pose  ! 
We  feel  their  movement,  and  yet  it  is  arrested.  No  need  for  any 
landscape  background  to  them  ; a few  walls  suffice  for  frames. 
The  costumes  are  half  fantastic  ; one  wears  a mitre  and  has  tails 
sewn  on  to  his  vestment,  a dimly  echoed  bishop  ; another  has  a 
battlemented  hat,  and  so  forth  : clothes,  faces,  wooden  limbs. 


CAMPINE  LANDSCAPE 


505 


and  all  the  rest,  work  of  creative  fancy  if  you  please,  but  based  on  a 
knowledge  of  life  and  its  significance  which  few  artists  have  rivalled. 
We  may  obviously  group  with  this  as  painted  in  a like  mood  the 
Naples  picture  (dated  1563)  of  the  Blind  leading  the  Blind.  The 
first  pair,  fallen  or  falling  into  a ditch,  derive  from  a design  by 
Bosch  ; the  four  followers  who  hook  on  to  them  in  a pathetic 
chain  are  Bruegel’s  addition.  The  poor  things  with  their  strange 
garments,  their  uncertain  steps,  their  varied  kinds  of  blindness, 
their  dependence  each  on  his  leader,  exact  our  interest  as  much 
as  our  pity.  There  is  the  experience  of  an  unhappy  life  written 
on  every  countenance.  It  was  not  Bruegel’s  first  attempt  to 
picture  the  blind.  Their  aspect  had  been  forced  on  him  in  his 
Antwerp  days  when  he  had  Bosch’s  design  to  redraw.  Again, 
in  1562  he  made  a design  of  his  own  (at  Berlin)  depicting  a couple 
of  blind  men,  or  may  be  only  one,  walking  along  a road.  There 
is  another  drawing  in  the  British  Museum  of  three  pilgrims,  but 
that  may  be  a copy,  and  I feel  no  assurance  that  the  men  are 
blind  ; it  is  only  evident  that  they  are  asking  for  alms.  The  lost 
picture  of  a group  of  fighting  peasants,  known  to  us  by  copies  more 
or  less  accurate,  one  of  them  by  Rubens,  must  also  have  been 
painted  about  this  time.  It  gave  Bruegel  an  opportunity  to  depict 
expression  forced  to  its  highest  point  yet  within  the  limit  of  life. 
No  need  to  caricature  or  exaggerate,  but  only  to  realize.  Copies 
enable  us  to  apprehend  the  vigour  of  the  conception  and  the 
skill  of  the  composition  ; but  the  best  of  them — for  Rubens’  is  only 
a sketch  —can  but  give  a dim  vision  of  the  picture  itself,  on  which 
Bruegel  evidently  lavished  his  maturist  skill. 

Our  artist  was  never  more  prolific  nor  fuller  of  inventive  imagi- 
nation than  at  this  time.  Did  he  feel  that  his  end  was  not  far 
off,  and  was  he  impatient  to  bear  all  the  fruit  possible  in  his  brief 
and  early  autumnal  days  ? A group  of  three  pictures  are  united 
by  their  common  possession  of  landscape  backgrounds  derived  from 
the  bare  expanses  of  the  Campine,  the  district  from  which  Bruegel 
may  have  sprung.  It  seems,  at  least,  probable  that  he  visited  it 
at  this  time.  The  first  is  again  known  to  us  only  by  copies  and 
links  itself  with  the  fighting  Peasants.  It  shows  a village  couple 
who  have  come  over  the  waste  that  stretches  away  to  the  skyline, 
marked  only  by  the  grooves  of  the  track  that  leads  from  village 


506 


PETER  BRUEGEL 


to  village.  They  have  entered  the  edge  of  a wood  and  three 
highwaymen  have  pounced  on  them,  and  they  must  surrender 
their  poor  little  goods  and  who  knows  what  else  to  the  robbers. 
Resistance  is  useless  ; terror  overwhelms  them — the  story  could 
not  be  better  told.  The  next  two  pictures  take  us  back  to  allegory 
once  more.  “ I go  mourning  because  the  World  is  so  false  ” is  the 
motto  of  a roundel  at  Naples.  A single  figure  dominates  this 
scene,  and  he  is  enveloped  in  a dark  cloak  and  hood  ; the  lower 
part  of  his  face  and  some  of  his  fingers  alone  emerge  from  the  hull 
of  drapery,  and  that  is  of  the  simplest  form,  yet  the  character  of 
the  Misanthrope  is  fully  expressed  with  much  economy  of  means. 
The  allegory  is  completed  by  another  figure  enclosed  within  a 
globe  and  meaning  what  you  please  ; one  hardly  notices  it.  The 
black-robed  man  holds  all  one’s  attention  and  rewards  it. 

Mr.  J.  G.  Johnson’s  “ The  Hireling  fleeth  ” is  a no  less  admirable 
composition,  again  reduced  to  a single  figure.  Bare  level  country 
stretches  from  him  on  all  sides  ; away  off  in  one  direction  is  a wood 
and  far  behind  is  a village  or  farmstead — no  shelter  to  be  had  in 
any  of  these,  and  the  wolf  pouncing  on  the  flock  and  already  dis- 
embowelling a sheep.  Go  for  him,  you  fat,  well-fed  coward ! 
But  the  lazy  fellow,  for  once  kindled  into  an  unwonted  activity, 
runs  terrified  away,  and  the  wolf  may  take  his  fill  for  all  he  cares — 
an  admirably  designed  figure  and  the  composition  generally  not 
compassable  by  any  that  ever  lived  save  Bruegel.  With  these  we 
are  compelled  to  group  the  Nest-robbers  (Vienna,  No.  718), ^ like- 
wise practically  a single-figure  piece,  for  the  boy  in  the  tree  hardly 
counts.  I imagine  the  landscape  to  belong  to  the  same  district 
as  the  rest,  but  to  a lower-lying  or  rather  less  barren  part  of  it,  for 
there  are  trees  about  and  a great  barn-homestead  in  the  back- 
ground. All  this  is  mere  frame  to  the  stout  and  healthy  peasant 
who  stands  just  on  the  far  side  of  a stream  which  divides  him 
from  us,  but  not  too  far  for  his  words  to  reach  us  easily.  The 
meaning  of  the  picture  is  immaterial,  nor  do  we  care  much  what  the 
fellow  has  to  say.  The  proverb  in  the  background  is  of  no  account. 
The  picture  appeals  directlj^  as  it  was  intended  to  appeal,  to  the 
eye,  and  like  music  fills  the  heart  with  delight. 

1 Hulin  mentions  a design  for  it  in  the  Uffizi  dated  1560  or  1564,  but  the  painting 
can  hardly  be  of  any  other  year  than  1568. 


I.  PETER  BRUEGEL.  COLL.  SEYMOUR-TROWER.— p.  503.  PETER  BRUEGEL.  THE  HIRELING  SHEPHERD. 

PHILADELPHIA.— p.  506. 


: ■'  - 

- . ..  V v'jii 

^',V-¥4 


■;f;.;. , 


H, 


o . i '‘-'=T^-V 


-3'vt" ' 


, -■;!«■■ 

A::,K- 

rJi-' 


m 


H# 


. ' >- 
•n:'f  ,vrt-.'.V 


S'  <i' ; ' - ■'45.’'  ‘ ''V  o/>''  -^' 


> ^ 


- 


»^;'  1«  . ' '■> 


..  >. 


HIS  DEATH 


507 


A picture  at  Darmstadt  also  belongs  to  this  year  1568  ; it  is  of 
different  character  from  the  foregoing  and  returns  to  the  type 
of  comprehensive  landscape.  We  are  looking  from  a height 
along  a wide,  flat  valley  trending  west  into  a misty  brilliance  and 
bordered  by  mountains,  the  valley,  perhaps,  of  the  Rhone,  bosky 
like  that  in  its  rougher  parts,  and  with  a castle  (Valere  ?)  on  a 
protruding  crag  above  a town.  This  vista  is  framed  in  by  foliage 
of  tall  trees  quite  near  at  hand,  and  right  in  front  in  the  middle  is 
a gallows  with  a magpie  perched  upon  its  beam — such  a tiny  detail 
to  give  its  name  to  the  whole.  Peasants  are  dancing  beneath  it, 
and  the  ground  drops  away  through  a wood  to  the  town  below. 
When  Bruegel  died  he  bequeathed  this  picture  to  his  wife.  It 
is  called  the  Magpie  on  the  Gibbet.  Van  Mander  says  that  the 
bird  was  emblematic  of  a chattering  tongue  which  the  painter 
hereby  devoted  to  damnation.  The  bequest  can  hardly  be  con- 
sidered complimentary  to  the  legatee. 

The  year  1569  yields  only  three  unimportant  works,  parts  of 
incompleted  undertakings.  A pair  of  prints  illustrative  of  Spring 
and  Summer  were  evidently  an  instalment  of  an  intended  Four 
Seasons,  commissioned  by  Cock.  The  emphasis  given  to  the  large 
figures  in  the  foreground  agrees  with  Bruegel’s  later  habit.  The 
third  is  connected  with  a larger  projeet.  Van  Mander  relates  how 
the  Brussels  authorities,  who,  in  1561,  had  finished  cutting  a canal 
to  give  access  from  their  city  to  the  Scheldt,  commissioned  Bruegel 
to  make  a record  of  their  undertaking.  What  form  this  was  to 
take  we  cannot  say,  but  it  was  left  incomplete  when  he  died.  A 
single  extant  drawing  now  at  Chatsworth  is  its  sole  representative. 
It  is  a careful  washed  pen-and-ink  study  of  a dredger,  an  object 
rather  of  interest  than  beauty.  The  drawing  is  undated,  but  must 
belong  to  the  artist’s  latest  period. 

How  Bruegel  came  to  die  so  prematurely  we  know  not.  His 
last  pictures  prove  that  his  development  was  still  progressing. 
He  ean  scarcely  have  been  more  than  40  years  of  age  and  cannot 
be  assumed  to  have  done  the  best  work  of  which  he  was  capable. 
His  whole  active  eareer  only  covered  seventeen  years  ; so  original 
an  artist  needed  time  to  discover  his  true  bent,  and  to  elaborate  the 
new  forms  and  methods  necessary  for  the  expression  of  novel  ideals. 
In  art  he  practically  stood  alone.  He  was  not,  of  course,  the 


508 


PETER  BRUEGEL 


only  painter  of  peasant-life  of  his  day.  There  was  Peter  Aertsen 
besides,  and  there  were  others,  but  distant  from  him  by  how  long 
an  interval ! They  were  recorders  of  the  dull  fact,  but  in  him  the 
life  of  the  folk  stirred  as  it  did  in  Burns.  He  saw  them  in  the  magic 
mirror  of  his  mind  and  transfused  their  images  with  his  own  spirit 
of  romance.  He  stands  as  much  alone  in  the  mid-sixteenth 
century  as  the  Van  Eycks  at  the  beginning  of  the  fifteenth,  giants 
all  three,  opening  and  closing  the  long  procession  of  lesser  men 
who  connected  them.  Those  who  have  once  felt  the  power  of 
Bruegel  must  turn  away  from  him  with  regret.  Lesser  men 
tire  us,  but  the  greatest  are  never  tiresome,  and  he  was  of  that 
company. 


INDEX  OF  WORKS  OF  ART 


Agnew,  Messrs.  : Roger  School,  Crucifixion, 
135  note  ; Isenbrant,  Mass  of  St.  Gregory, 
303 

Aix-la-Chapelle  Gallery : Virgo  Master, 

Annunciation,  212 ; Ursula  Master, 
IMadonna,  250  ; Dutch  artist.  Cruci- 
fixion, 436 

Aix  in  Provence  Gallery : R.  Campin, 
Madonna,  120,  122 

Alkmaar,  St.  Lawrence’s  : The  Master  of 
Alkmaar,  Seven  Works  of  Mercy,  433 

Altenburg  Gallery : H.  v.  d.  Goes  (copy). 
Descent  from  the  Cross,  180 

Althorp  : Sotte  Cleve,  self-portrait,  416 

Ambierle  Abbey  (Loire) : altar-piece  of, 
146  note 

America,  U.S. : J.  Daret,  Arras  altar- 
piece,  Visitation  and  Nativity,  124,  134 

Amsterdam  Begijnhof : Mostaert  School, 
portrait  of  Nicholas  Cannius,  446 

— Gallery : Cornells  Buys  (?),  vault- 

paintings  from  Alkmaar,  434,  435  ; Jan 
de  Cock,  Crucifixion  triptych,  385, 
Circumcision,  385  ; Engebrechtsen, 
Crucifixion,  452,  Christ  at  Simon’s, 
453  ; Geertgen,  Magi,  216,  The  Virgin’s 
Kindred,  216,  Nativity,  215  ; L. 
van  Leyden,  A Preacher,  484  ; Mabuse, 
A Knight  of  the  Golden  Fleece,  369, 
375  ; Cornells  Massys,  Prodigal  Son, 
332  ; Q.  Massys,  Madonna  (eopy),  318, 
portrait  of  Erasmus  (eopy),  327  ; 
Mostaert,  Deposition  triptych,  439, 
Magi,  441  ; J.  van  Oostsanen,  Cruci- 
fixion (No.  723),  458,  Witch  of  Endor, 
461 , self-portrait,  462  ; a Delft  artist, 
a pair  of  wings  (No.  50),  435  ; Master  of 
Amsterdam  St.  Lucia,  St.  Lucia,  220,  458  ; 
Master  of  the  Solomons,  Solomon 
Sacrificing,  260  ; Early  Leyden  School 
(43a),  216 

Antwerp  Cathedral  : Master  of  St.  Hubert, 
Marriage  of  the  Virgin,  155  ; Q.  Massys, 
Crucifixion  (destroyed),  324 

— Gallery  : .J.  van  Eyck,  Madonna  by  a 
Fountain,  69,  St.  Barbara,  70  ; Bruges 

34 


School,  diptych  of  Abbot  de  Hondt,  70, 
254  ; Roger  van  der  Weyden,  Annuncia- 
tion, 133,  Seven  Saeraments,  137, 
portrait  of  Philip  de  Croy,  147  ; School  of 
Tournay,  Man  with  a Dart,  149  ; Dirk 
Bouts,  Madonna,  166  ; Ghent  School, 
Madonna,  189  ; Early  Dutch  School, 
Madonna  triptych  (Nos.  561-3),  221  ; 
Memling,  portrait  of  Niccolo  Fiorentino, 
238,  (?)  organ  panels  from  Najera,  243  ; 
G.  David,  pair  of  wings,  277  ; Antwerp 
School,  Fete  of  the  Archers  Guild,  314  ; 
Q.  Massys,  St.  Christopher,  316,  Heads 
of  Christ  and  the  Virgin,  316,  Magdalen 
half-length,  319,  Pieta  triptych,  320,  324  ; 
Q.  Massys  School,  Banker  and  Wife,  325; 
M.  van  Reymerswael,  Excisemen,  326  ; 
Cornelis  Massys,  landscape,  333  ; Mabuse, 
Man  of  Sorrows  (copy),  377  ; Sotte  Cleve, 
man’s  portrait,  414,  415  ; B.  van  Orley, 
Seven  Sorrows,  422,  Last  Judgment,  424, 
481 ; Engebreehtsen,  Christ  awaiting  Cru- 
cifixion, 449  ; J.  van  Oostsanen,  triptych, 
459  ; Peter  II  Bruegel,  after  old  Peter, 
Magi,  495 

Antwerp,  Mayer  van  den  Bergh  Gallery  ; 
Early  French  School,  triptych,  113  ; 
Q.  Massys,  Crucifixion,  323  ; Antwerp 
Mannerist  E,  Christ  among  the  Doctors, 
390  ; Joos  van  Cleve,  woman’s  portrait, 
403  ; Peter  Bruegel,  twelve  roundels  of 
proverbs,  495 

— St.  James’ : Jan  Massys,  Madonna,  331 
Arco-Valley  Collection  : Isenbrant,  Virgo 
inter  Virgines,  285,  301 
Arenberg,  Colleetion  of  Due  d’ : Ghent 
Sehool  (?),  Christ  among  the  Doetors,  189 
Arras  Library  : portrait-drawing  of  Roger 
van  der  Weyden,  132  ; portrait-drawing 
of  Jerome  Bosch,  334 
Auspitz  Collection  : Master  of  Frankfurt 
(?),  pair  of  portraits,  384  ; Engebrecht- 
sen, Abraham  and  Melchisedec,  450,  476 
Autun,  Eveche,  Master  of  Moulins, 
Nativity,  187 

Aynard  Collection,  Lyons : Broederlam, 


510 


INDEX  OF  WORKS  OF  ART 


Madonna,  29  ; Q.  Massys,  Madonna, 
316,  323 

Back  (von)  Collection  : Provost,  Pieta,  292 

Barnard  Castle:  J.  van  Oostsanen,  Cruci- 
fixion, 458 

Basle  Gallery : Antwerp  Mannerist  B, 

Prodigal  Son,  275  ; Jan  de  Beer,  Prodigal 
Son,  two  roundels,  386,  388,  423  ; J.  van 
Oostsanen,  Nativity,  458 

Bath,  Holborne  Museum:  H.  v.  d.  Goes 
(copy),  Magi,  176 

Beauchamp,  Collection  of  Lord : J.  van 
Oostsanen  (?),  portrait  of  an  artist  by 
himself,  461 

Beaune  Hospital : Roger  van  der  Weyden, 
Last  Judgment,  146 

Bennett,  Collection  of  Sir  W.  H. : J.  van 
Oostsanen,  triptych,  459 

Benois  Collection  : Leonardo,  Madonna,  409 

Benoit  Collection  : Bosch  (copy),  A Boating 
Party,  346 

Bergamo  Gallery : Justus  of  Ghent,  man’s 
portrait,  199 

Bergamo  Library : sketch-book  of  Gio- 
vannino  de’  Grassi,  39 

Berlin,  Art  Industries  Museum : Enge- 
brechtsen,  windows  designed  by  him,  455 

— Gallery  : Jan  de  Beer,  triptych,  387  ; 
Bosch,  St.  John  at  Patmos,  337,  409  ; 
Albert  Bouts,  Annunciation,  258  ; Dirk 
Bouts,  Crucifixion,  163,  Madonna,  166  ; 
Dirk  Bouts  and  another,  Ecce  Agnus 
Dei,  172 ; Peter  Bruegel,  Everyman, 
496 ; R.  Campin,  Crucifixion,  122, 
Portrait  of  a Monk,  124  ; P.  Christus, 
Steenken  Madonna,  105,  portrait  of 
a lady,  108  ; Sotte  Cleve,  woman’s  por- 
trait, 415,  portrait  of  a youth,  418  ; 
J.  Daret,  Magi  and  Presentation,  124  ; 
G.  David,  Crucifixion,  291,  351  ; H.  van 
Eyck,  Madonna  in  a Church,  59,  Ma- 
donna by  a Fountain  (copy),  59, 
Crucifixion,  59,  61  ; J.  van  Eyck,  head 
of  a man,  62,  Madonna  in  a Church,  69, 
portrait  of  John  Arnolfini,  67,  68,  por- 
trait of  Baldwin  de  Lannoy,  67,  68, 
portrait  of  an  Esquire  of  the  Order  of 
St.  Anthony,  62,  67,  224  ; Geertgen,  St. 
John  Baptist,  217  ; Hugo  v.  d.  Goes, 
Death  of  the  Virgin  (copy),  174, 
Mourners  at  the  Cross,  179,  Nativity, 
185,  The  Monforte  Magi,  185,  186  ; 
Justus  of  Ghent,  Liberal  Arts,  197 ; 
L.  van  Leyden,  Chess-players,  472, 
St.  Jerome,  476,  Madonna  with  Cherubs, 
480  ; Mabuse,  Agony  in  the  Garden,  362, 


364,  Adam  and  Eve,  371,  Neptune  and 
Amphitrite,  371,  man’s  portrait,  called 
Charles  of  Burgundy,  376,  Madonna  with 
Grapes,  377 ; Cornelis  Massys,  genre, 
332,  landscape,  333  ; Q.  Massys, 
Weeping  Magdalen  (fragment),  319  ; 
Memling,  man’s  portrait,  240,  Madonna, 
241,  (?),  Enthroned  Madonna,  243, 

(?),  Enthroned  Madonna  (from  Coll. 
Thiem),  243,  244 ; Mostaert,  por- 

trait of  a man,  443  ; J.  van  Oostsanen, 
Madonna  triptych,  459 ; Ouwater, 
Lazarus,  201  ; Patinir,  Rest  by  the  Way, 
350,  352 ; Provost,  Magi,  293 ; Goswin 
van  der  Weyden,  The  Donation  of 
Calmpthout,  150,  274  ; Roger  van  der 
Weyden,  Pieta,  135,  136,  portrait  of  a 
woman,  136,  John  Baptist  three-panel 
altar-piece,  140,  158,  the  Middelburg 
Altar,  146,  portrait  of  Charles  the 
Rash,  147,  half-length  Madonna,  150, 
Two  Saints,  206  ; Antwerp  Manner- 
ist A,  Beheading  of  the  Baptist,  386  ; 
Antwerp  Mannerist  E,  Christ  taking 
leave  of  Virgin,  390  ; Flemish  Milanese 
artist.  Madonna,  318  ; Master  of  St. 
Bertin’s,  altar-piece  of  St.  Bertin’s,  223  ; 
Master  of  St.  Giles,  St.  Jerome,  192  ; 
Master  of  Mansi  Magdalen,  the  Magdalen, 
323  ; Ursula  Master  and  another,  Wise 
and  Foolish  Virgins,  249  ; Virgo  Master, 
Magi,  213  ; Bruges  School,  C^rucifixion 
triptych,  253  ; Cologne  School,  triptych, 
12  ; Early  Dutch  School,  Madonna,  221 ; 
Flemish  School,  fifteenth  century,  Hornes 
Memorial  picture,  152  ; Flemish  School, 
c.  1500,  profile  head  of  Christ,  235  ; 
Ghent  School,  Annunciation,  189 ; Early 
French  triptych  from  the  Weber  Collec- 
tion, 28 

Berlin,Print-room:  Mathias  Cock, landscape 
drawing,  357,  487  ; B.  van  Orley,  draw- 
ings, 429  ; Peter  Bruegel,  drawings, 
488,  505 

Berne  Museum  : tapestries  after  Roger  van 
der  Weyden’s  Justice  pictures,  130  ; 
vestments  captured  from  Charles  the 
Rash,  designs  for  them  by  Roger,  139 

Bethune,  Collection  of  Baron : Franco- 
Flemish  School,  A Saint  in  a Desert,  225  ; 
School  of  Memling,  Madonna,  236 

Beurnonville  (de)  sale : follower  of  Bouts, 
wrongly  ascribed  to  Memling,  Madonna 
and  four  Saints,  249 

Bissing  (von)  Collection  : Jan  de  Cock, 
St.  Christopher,  384 ; Jan  Joest,  Nativity, 
397 


INDEX  OF  WORKS  OF  ART 


511 


Blakeslee  sale  (1915) : Goswin  van  der 
Weyden,  The  Virgin’s  Kindred,  275 

Blumenthal  Collection  (New  York) : Joos 
van  Cleve,  Crucifixion,  403,  407  ; Ma- 
donna, 407 

Bock  Collection:  Albert  Bouts,  Heads  of 
Christ  and  the  Virgin,  259 

Bolivia,  Collection  Bandelier : Antwerp 
Mannerist  E,  367 

Bonn,  Provincial  Museum  : Early  Dutch 
School,  Assumption,  221 

— Coll.  Wesendonk:  landscape,  352; 

Mostaert,  Last  Judgment,  440 

Bonnat  Collection  : drawings  of  the  School 
of  Roger,  144 

Bonneval  (Ruffo  de)  sale  : Albert  Bouts, 
Heads  of  Christ  and  the  Virgin,  259  ; 
Provost,  Last  Judgment,  293  ; Antwerp 
IMannerist  E,  Magi,  405  ; J.  van 
Oostsanen,  Crucifixion,  457 

Boston  Gallery,  U.S.A.  : Roger  van  der 
Weyden,  The  Virgin  and  St.  Luke,  132, 
150, 151, 166  ; Memling  School,  Madonna, 
244  ; Jan  Massys,  Judith,  331 

— Gardner  Gallery  : Mabuse,  portrait  of 
Anne  van  Bergen,  374  ; Joos  van  Cleve, 
Crucifixion,  409 

Bourgeois  sale  (1904):  Memling,  Madonna, 
243 

Bremen,  Kunsthalle : L.  van  Leyden, 
Susanna,  472 

Brenken  Collection : Henry  Patinir,  St. 
Christopher,  356 

Brownlow,  Collection  of  Lord : INIabuse, 
portrait  of  Anne  van  Bergen,  374 

Bruges,  Peter  Pourbus,  various  pictures, 
309 

— Cathedral  : .1.  van  Eeckele,  Mater 

Dolorosa,  297 ; Isenbrant,  Mater 
Dolorosa,  305  ; B.  van  Orley,  Cruci- 
fixion, 424 

— Convent  of  the  Black  Sisters,  Ursula 
Master,  eight  pictures  of  the  Ursula 
legend,  248 

— Episcopal  Seminary  : Brussels  School, 
Last  Supper,  207  ; follower  of  Bouts, 
Last  Supper,  207,  261  ; Ursula  Master, 
portraits  of  Maximilian  and  wife,  250 

— Gallery : G.  David,  The  Judgment  of 
Sisamnes,  254,  282,  Baptism  triptych, 
283,  350  ; J.  van  Eyck,  portrait  of  his 
wife,  67,  68,  138,  the  Paele  altar-piece, 
69,  376  ; H.  v.  d.  Goes,  Death  of  the 
Virgin,  174,  180  ; Memling,  St.  Christo- 
pher, altar-piece,  240  ; Peter  Pourbus, 
John  Fernagant  and  his  Wife,  310  ; 
Provost,  Last  Judgment,  295,  Death  and 


Lanckart,  294 ; Flemish  School,  fifteenth 
century,  portrait  of  Philip  the  Good,  149 

Bruges,  Holy  Blood  Chapel : Ghent  School, 
unidentified  subject,  189  ; Dirk  Vellert, 
glass  roundel,  393 

— Palais  de  Justice : chimney-piece  by 
Lancelot  Blondeel,  306 

— St.  Donation’s  : J.  van  Eyck,  altar-piece 
of  George  van  der  Paele,  69 

— St.  James’ : Master  of  the  Lucia  Legend, 
St.  Lucia,  250  ; Albert  Cornells,  Coro- 
nation of  the  Virgin,  300  ; Peter  Pourbus, 
Mater  Dolorosa,  310 

— Hospital  of  St.  John  : Memling,  Marriage 
of  St.  Catherine  triptych,  231,  Floreins 
Magi  altar-piece,  232,  237,  Shrine  of 
St.  Ursula,  233,  Nieuwenhoven  diptych, 
236,  241,  243,  “ Sibylla  Sambettia,” 
240,  362 

— St.  Saviour’s : Dirk  Bouts,  St.  Hippo- 
lytus,  169,  183  ; Bruges  School,  Cruci- 
fixion, 254  ; Lancelot  Blondeel,  Guild 
banner,  307  ; P.  Claeissins  the  Elder, 
Resurrection,  308 

— Town  Hall,  statues  painted  by  John  van 
Eyck,  66 

Brunswick  Gallery : Geertgen,  diptych,  214  ; 
L.  van  Leyden,  portrait  of  a youth,  464, 
477 ; L.  van  ’Valkenborch,  landscape, 
359 

Brussels,  Bibl.  roy.,  Tres  Belles  Heures, 
by  Jacquemart,  21,  22,  24 

— Gallery  : Bosch  (after).  Nativity  , 335  ; 
Albert  Bouts,  Assumption  for  St. 
Peter’s,  Louvain,  257,  Assumption,  257, 
Last  Supper,  258,  Supper  at  Simon’s, 
258  ; Dirk  Bouts,  Justice  panels,  172, 209  ; 
Peter  Bruegel,  Magi,  494,  Fall  of  Lucifer, 
497,  Numbering  the  Folk  at  Bethlehem, 
501  ; P.  Christus,  Mourning  over  dead 
Christ,  110,  137  ; Joos  van  Cleve  and 
Patinir,  Rest  by  the  Way,  404  ; Colin 
deCoter(?),  Descent  from  the  Cross,  265  ; 
G.  David,  Magi,  282  ; L.  van  Leyden,  St. 
Anthony,  474  ; Q.  Massys,  Enthroned 
Virgin,  316,  322,  Virgin  and  Child,  322, 
The  Virgin’s  Kindred,  324 ; Q.  Massys 
School,  Crucifixion,  323  ; Memling,  por- 
trait of  N.  Strozzi  (?),  238,  portrait  of  W. 
Moreel  and  wife,  240  ; Mostaert,  Adrichen 
(or  Oultremont)  triptych,  439,  pair  of 
wings,  441,  man’s  portrait,  445  ; B. 
van  Orley,  wings  of  Vienna  altar-piece, 
420,  Job  altar-piece,  423,  the  Hanneton 
altar-piece,  i424.  Dr.  George  van  Zelle, 
426,  portrait  of  an  Imperial  Secretary, 
426  ; Henry  Patinir,  Baptist  preaching. 


512 


INDEX  OF  WORKS  OF  ART 


356  ; Patinir  and  Joos  van  Cleve,  Rest  by 
the  Way,  350  ; Roger  van  der  Weyden, 
Pieta,  135,  136  ; portrait  of  a Knight 
of  the  Golden  Fleece,  147  ; Roger 
School,  Sforza  tript5'^ch,  145,  226 ; the 
Afflighem  Master,  wings  of  the  Ziericzee 
triptych,  267,  eight  panels  from  the 
Abbey,  267  ; Rruges  Lucia  Master,  the 
Drie  Sanctinnen  altar-piece,  251,  285  ; 
Master  of  Mansi  Magdalen,  Adam  and 
Eve,  330  ; Master  of  the  Orsoy  Altar, 
Nativity  and  Circumcision,  266  ; Master 
ofTurin  Crucifixion,  Crucifixion  (No.  126), 
436  ; Antwerp  Mannerist  C,  Magdalen 
altar-piece,  385  ; Antwerp  Mannerist 
E,  Supper  at  Simon’s  triptych,  389  ; 
Brussels  School,  Annunciation  and 
Nativity,  270 ; Franco-Flemish  School, 
A Preacher  (No.  35),  226 

Brussels  Hospital : B.  van  Orley,  altar- 
piece,  422 

— Mus.  du  Cinquintenaire ; H.  v.  d.  Goes 
(copy),  David  and  Abigail,  178 

— St.  Gudule’s,  B.  van  Orley,  windows 
designed  by,  429 

— Town-hall,  Roger  van  der  Weyden, 
Justice  pictures,  130 

Budapest : G.  David,  Nativity,  278,  283  ; 
Engebrechtsen,  roundel,  454  ; Mabuse, 
Portrait  of  Charles  V,  370,  375,  425  ; 
Master  of  Alkmaar,  Christ  at  Simon’s 
(No.  690),  433 

— Gallery,  Memling  (?),  triptych,  243 

Burckhardt  Collection  (Basle) : Enge- 

brechtsen, Crucifixion,  452  ; Memling  (?), 
St.  Jerome,  243 


Calcar,  St.  Nicholas’  : Jan  Joest,  altar- 
piece,  397 

Cambrai  Cathedral : Miraculous  Madonna, 
105,  106 

Cambridge,  Fitzwilliam  Museum  : Joos  van 
Cleve,  Madonna,  158,  402 

— King’s  College : Dirk  Vellert,  glass 
windows,  392,  395 

Cambridge, U.S.A.,Fogg  Museum,  G.  David, 
portrait  of  Joos  van  der  Burg  and  Ma- 
donna diptych,  132,  152,  281 

Cardon  Collection  : Master  of  St.  Giles, 

Betrayal,  191 ; Master  of  the  Solomons, 
pair  of  wings,  260  ; B.  van  Orley  (?),  A 
Lady  as  the  Magdalen,  427 

Carew,  Collection  of  Lord  : Antwerp  Man- 
nerist E,  Magi,  390 

Carlsruhe  Gallery:  Mabuse,  Madonna,  PI. 
XVIII ; Antwerp  Mannerist  D,  PI.  XX 


Carstanjen  Collection : Q.  Massys,  pair  of 
wings,  316,  324 

Carvalho  Collection  : G.  David,  Descent 
from  the  Cross,  290 ; B.  van  Orley, 
Margaret  of  Austria,  425  ; School  of 
Roger,  Madonna,  152,  207 
Cassel  Gallery  : Joos  van  Cleve,  portraits, 
411  ; B,  van  Orley,  altar-piece,  422  ; J. 
van  Oostsanen,  All  Saints  triptych,  460, 
Noli  me  tangere,  457 

Castellaci  Collection  (Ragusa) : School  of 
Bouts,  Madonna,  167 
Cels  Collection  (Brussels)  : Joos  van  Cleve, 
St.  Jerome  (after  Diirer),  406 
Cernuschi  sale  : Roger  School,  Madonna,  152 
Chantilly : French  School,  diptych  of 

Jeanne  de  Bourbon,  122,  226  ; Heures  de 
Chantilly,  by  the  de  Limbourgs,  35  ff,, 
43,  77,  502  ; Master  of  St.  Giles,  pair  of 
portraits,  192  ; Memling  School,  portrait 
of  Anthony,  Bastard  of  Burgundy,  237  ; 
Simon  Marmion  (?),  carrying  the  chasse 
of  St.  Perpetua,  225 

Chatsworth : Memling,  triptych,  222  ; Peter 
Bruegel,  a Dredger,  507 ; Bruges  School, 
Consecration  of  a Bishop  and  Incident  in 
a Saint’s  Legend,  298 
Chicago  Gallery  : Q.  Massys,  man’s  portrait, 
319,  327 

Christiania  Gallery : Peter  Claeissins  the 
Elder,  self-portrait,  308 
Citta  di  Castello  Gallery  : Justus  of  Ghent 
(?),  Salvator  Mundi,  199 
Clarke,  C.B.O.  Collection : Q.  Massys, 
Madonna  and  Saints,  523 
Clemens  Collection ; Memling,  Nativity, 
232  note 

Colnaghi,  Messrs.  : Joos  van  Cleve,  St. 
John  at  Patmos,  409  ; Colin  de  Coter, 
Madonna,  264,  Enthroned  Madonna, 
265  ; G.  David,  Descent  from  the  Cross, 
290  ; the  Magdalen  Master,  the  Legend 
of  the  Magdalen,  269 

Cologne,  Archbishop’s  Museum : J.  de  Beer, 
Crucifixion,  387 

— Cathedral : School  of  Wilhelm,  the  St. 
Clara  altar-piece,  11 

— Museum  : J.  de  Beer,  Nativity  triptych 
from  Dormagen  Collection,  387  ; Bosch 
(after).  Nativity,  335  ; Barthel  Bruyn, 
St.  Victor  altar-piece,  400  ; Joos  van 
Cleve,  the  smaller  Hackeney  triptych, 
404 ; a Delft  artist.  Crucifixion  (No.  492), 
436  ; Master  of  the  Solomons,  four-panel 
altar-piece,  260  ; Dutch  School,  Holy 
Family  in  a Room,  438  ; School  of 
Wilhelm,  triptych,  11 


INDEX  OF  WORKS  OF  ART 


513 


Cook,  Collection  of  Sir  Herbert  (Richmond) : 
Jan  de  Beer,  Incidents  in  St.  Joseph 
Legend,  387  ; Peter  Claeissins  the  Elder, 
self-portrait,  308  ; Frangois  Clouet, 
Diane  de  Poitiers,  331  ; H.  van  Eyck, 
The  Three  Marys  at  the  Sepulchre,  59, 
61  ; Mabuse,  youth’s  portrait,  370, 
Hercules  and  Deianira,  371  ; J.  van 
Oostsanen  (?),  man’s  portrait,  462  ; 
B.  van  Orley,  fragment  of  a Crucifixion, 
424 ; Goswin  van  der  Weyden,  St. 
Catherine  triptych,  275,  276  ; School  of 
Roger,  Madonna  and  Saints,  142  ; French 
School,  fifteenth  century,  Virgin  with 
St.  Catherine,  205 

Copenhagen  Gallery  : Peter  Bruegel,  three 
heads,  492  ; P.  Christus,  St.  Anthony, 
106,  107  ; Mabuse,  portrait  of  Chris- 
tian II,  370,  portrait,  370,  377  ; Mem- 
ling,  Nativity,  232  note  ; Mostaert,  por- 
trait of  a man,  443,  Last  Judgment, 
441  ; Patinir  and  Half-lengths  Master, 
Madonna,  353 

Courtrai,  Notre  Dame : statue  of  St. 
Catherine  attributed  to  Beauneveu,  27 

Cracow  church  : Q.  Massys,  Pieta,  316 

Crespi  sale  : Bosch  follower.  Thimble  and 
Pea  Trick,  346  ; School  of  Roger,  Holy 
Family,  142 

Crews  sale  : School  of  Roger,  diptych  of 
Philip  Hinckaert,  156 ; Dutch  School, 
Ecce  Homo,  336 

Czernin  Collection  : Antwerp  Mannerist  E, 
triptych,  392 


Dansette  Collection:  B.  van  Orley,  Madonna, 
422 

Dantzig,  St.  Mary’s : Memling,  Last  Judg-  | 
ment,  228 

Darmstadt  Gallery:  Peter  Bruegel,  The 
Magpie  on  the  Gibbet,  358,  507 

Davis  Collection : Dirk  Bouts,  Madonna, 
166 

Della  Faille  sale : Q.  Massys  (copy),  The 
Banker  and  Wife,  325 

Dessau  Gallery : Cornells  Massys,  landscape, 
333 

Detroit,  IMich.,  Gallery : Engebrechtsen, 
Last  Judgment,  451 

Dijon,  Champmol  Abbey : the  Puits  de 
Moise  and  other  sculptures,  27-34 

— Museum  : paintings  by  Broederlam,  28  ; 
R.  Campin,  Nathdty,  120  ; G.  David, 
Stem  of  Jesse,  116  ; Mostaert,  Head  of 
the  Baptist,  440  ; J.  van  Oostsanen 
(copy),  portrait  of  the  Duke  of  East  i 


Friesland,  461  ; Tombs  of  the  Dukes  of 
Burgundy,  31 

Dingwall  Collection:  G.  David,  Descent  from 
the  Cross,  290,  351 

Dollfus  Collection  : Antwerp  Mannerist  C, 
Madonna,  388  ; Bruges  School,  the 
Ghistelles  polyptych,  253 

Dowdeswell,  Messrs. : the  Magdalen  Master, 
pair  of  wings,  269 

Dreicer  Collection  : Roger,  man’s  portrait, 
148 

Dresden  Gallery  : Hans  Bol,  Abraham  and 
Angels,  358  ; Peter  Bruegel,  drawings, 
488,  493  ; Joos  van  Cleve,  Descent  from 
the  Cross,  403,  Magi  (the  smaller 
picture),  404,  405,  Magi  (the  larger 
picture),  405,  407  ; Diirer,  portrait  of 
Bernard  van  Orley,  419,  423  ; J.  van 
Eyck,  Madonna  triptych,  64,  65,  por- 
trait drawing  of  Cardinal  Albergati,  67  ; 
Q.  Massys  School,  Bargain  over  a Hen, 
327  ; Memling  School,  portrait  of 
Anthony,  Bastard  of  Burgundy,  237  ; 
B.  van  Orley,  portrait,  427  ; Henry 
Patinir  (?),  Pedlar  and  Monkeys,  356  ; 
Roger  School,  Crucifixion,  135,  Madonna, 
152  ; Antwerp  Mannerist  E,  Adoration, 
390  ; Dutch  Master  of  the  St.  Annes, 
Holy  Family,  220,  398,  424,  438 

Dublin  Gallery : G.  David,  Christ,  202, 
448  ; Master  of  the  Solomons,  Miracles 
of  a Saint,  260 

Dun  Collection  : Memling,  youth’s  portrait, 
239 

Durlacher,  Messrs. : Bruges  School, Nativity, 
Presentation,  and  Magi  triptych,  299, 
385,  399 

Durrieu,  Collection  of  Count  Paul : Provost, 

I Abraham  and  Sarah,  294 

Duveen  Brothers : Roger  van  der  Weyden, 
Panel  of  the  Granada  triptych,  140 

Edinburgh,  Holyrood  Palace : H.  v.  d. 
Goes,  wings  of  a triptych,  178 

Ellenborough  sale : Joos  van  Cleve,  pair  of 
portraits,  41 1 

Emden  sale  : J.  de  Beer,  Annunciation 
(No.  88),  387  ; Isenbrant,  Adam  and  Eve, 
after  Mabuse,  302  ; B.  van  Orley, 
Madonna  with  Angels,  421 

Escorial : Bosch,  painted  table-top,  337, 
Christ  crowned  with  Thorns,  340,  Hay- 
waggon  triptych,  342,  Christ  bearing 
the  Cross,  344  ; Patinir,  St.  Christopher, 
350,  354  ; Roger  van  der  Weyden, 
j Descent  from  the  Cross,  131,  137,  155, 
i 402,  Crucifixion,  PI.  VI 


514 


INDEX  OF  WORKS  OF  ART 


Fetis  sale : Peter  Bruegel  (copy),  Death  of 
the  Virgin  (No.  11),  495 

Figdor  Collection  : Bosch,  The  Pedlar,  341  ; 
Master  of  Amsterdam  St.  Lucia,  Descent 
from  the  Cross,  220 

Flemalle  Abbey  : altar-piece  by  R.  Campin, 

120,  121 

Flersheim  Collection : Engebrechtsen, 

Christ  with  Prophets  and  Saints,  448 

Florence,  Bargello : Dirk  Bouts,  Madonna, 
166,  316  ; H.  v.  d.  Goes  (copy), 
Descent  from  the  Cross,  180  ; J.  van 
Oostsanen,  pair  of  roundels,  460  ; Early 
French  School,  diptych,  113 

— Corsini  Gallery  : Memling,  portrait,  238 

— Uffizi : Bruges  School,  Virgin  and 

Saints  (No.  666),  296  ; Joos  van  Cleve, 
pair  of  portraits,  411  ; H.  v.  d.  Goes, 
the  Portinari  triptych,  181  ; follower 
of  H.  V.  d.  Goes,  pair  of  portraits  of 
Pierantonio  Baroncelli  and  wife,  188,  239 ; 
Memling,  Madonna  with  festoons,  116, 
236,  St.  Benedict  and  donor,  241  ; B. 
van  Orley,  pair  of  portraits,  426  ; Henry 
Patinir,  landscape  with  miners,  356  ; 
Roger,  Entombment,  143,  157  note ; 
Virgo  Master,  Crucifixion,  212 

Forest  (de)  Collection:  G.  David  School, 
Madonna,  289 

Franchetti  Collection  (Venice) : Cruci- 

fixion of  the  School  of  H.  van  Eyck,  49 
note 

Frankfurt  Historical  Museum : Master  of 
Frankfurt,  St.  Anne  altar-piece,  384 

— Stadel  Institut : Jan  de  Beer,  drawing 
of  Death  of  St.  Anne,  387  ; Dirk  Bouts, 
Pieta  (copy),  163,  (?),  Madonna,  166, 
167 ; R.  Campin,  Thief  on  the  Cross, 
120,  panels  from  Flemalle  Abbey, 
120,  121  ; P.  Christus,  Madonna,  72, 
107  ; Joos  van  Cleve,  Pieta,  406 ; 
G.  David,  sketch-book,  284,  St.  Jerome, 
351  ; J.  van  Eyck,  the  Lucca  Madonna, 
68,  107,  401  ; H.  v.  d.  Goes,  Madonna, 
175  ; L.  van  Leyden  (after),  drawings, 
477  ; Q.  Massys,  portrait  of  man  with 
eye-glasses,  319,  321,  328  ; Memling, 
man’s  portrait,  240  ; Memling  School, 
Madonna,  244  ; Roger,  copy  of  Berlin 
Baptist  triptych,  140,  Virgin  and  four 
Saints,  142  ; L.  van  Valkenborch,  land- 
scapes, 359  ; Master  of  the  Sibyl,  Sibyl 
and  Augustus,  202  ; Master  of  Turin 
Crucifixion,  Crucifixion,  436  ; Cologne 
School,  Paradise  picture,  13,  205 

Freiburg  i.  B.:  Ursula  Master,  altar-piece, 
249 


Friedsam  Collection : Roger,  portrait  of 
Lionello  d’Este,  143,  157  note 
Fry  Collection  : Ghent  School,  Magi,  189 

Galliera,  Collection  of  the  Due  de : G.  David, 
Nativity,  279 

Gelder,  Collection  of  M.  van  : G.  David, 
small  diptych,  288  ; follower  of  Geertgen, 
Virgin  and  St.  Anne,  221 
Genoa,  Pal.  Brignole-Sale : G.  David, 

Madonna,  285,  286,  Crucifixion,  291  ; 
G.  David  School,  Madonna,  289 

— Pal.  Durazzo  : follower  of  Hugo  v.  d. 
Goes,  triptych,  244 ; the  Magdalen 
Master,  triptych,  268 

— St.  Donato’s ; Joos  van  Cleve,  Magi,  407 
Gerhard  (von)  Collection  (Budapest) : Peter 

Bruegel,  Operation  on  a Fool,  491 
Ghent  Gallery : Mabuse  (copy),  Man  of 
Sorrows,  377 ; Antwerp  Mannerist  A, 
Magi,  386  ; Master  of  the  Mansi  Mag- 
dalen, Entombment,  330  ; Ghent  School, 
The  Virgin  and  Kindred,  189 

— St.  Bavon’s  : H.  and  J.  van  Eyek,  Adora- 
tion of  the  Lamb  altar-pieee,  49,  52-8, 
65  ; Ghent  School,  Crucifixion,  189 

Glasgow  Gallery  : B.  van  Orley,  Madonna, 
421  ; Master  of  Moulins,  Donor  and 
Saint,  188 

Glitza  Collection : Virgo  Master,  Crucifixion, 
212 

Glutz  Collection,  Benzige  de : School  of 
Hugo  V.  d.  Goes,  Virgo  inter  Virgines, 
190 

Goldschmidt  Collection : follower  of  Bouts, 
portrait  of  a clergyman,  261  ; Isenbrant, 
St.  Luke,  305 

Gorhambury:  portrait  of  a child  by  or 
after  Mabuse  at,  PI.  XVIII 
Granada,  Chapel  Royal : Dirk  Bouts, 

triptych,  158,  162,  290  ; Bouts  School, 
Madonna,  168  ; Memling,  Descent  from 
the  Cross,  245 ; Memling  School,  Madonna. 
244 ; Roger  van  der  Weyden,  three-panel 
altar-piece  of  the  Virgin,  134,  140,  158  ; 
Master  of  the  Sibyl,  Madonna,  203 
Graneey-le-Chateau : Isenbrant,  triptych, 
301 

Grisar,  Collection  of  Max : Peter  Bruegel, 
Village  in  the  Snow,  500 
Gubbio  Cathedral : vestment  designed  by 
Justus  of  Ghent  (?),  199 
Gutmann  Collection  (Vienna) : Mabuse, 
portrait  of  Carondelet,  376 

Haarlem  Gallery : Mostaert  School,  portrait 
of  1545,  446 


INDEX  OF  WORKS  OF  ART 


515 


Haarlem,  St.  Bavon’s  : Geertgen,  View  of 
the  Chiireh,  219 

Haest  Collection : P.  Claeissins  the  Elder, 
Madonna,  308 

Hague  (The)  Gallery  : J.  van  Oostsanen, 
Salome,  460  ; Roger  van  der  Weyden, 
Mourning  over  Christ,  137 
Hainauer  sale : Mostaert,  portrait  of  Joost 
van  Bronckhorst,  444 
Hampton  Court : Joos  van  Cleve  (copy), 
portraits  of  Francis  I and  Eleonore  of 
Austria,  408,  portrait  of  Henry  VIII, 
408,  411  ; J.  van  Eyck,  portrait  of 
George  van  der  Paele,  67,  69  ; L.  van 
Leyden  (after),  two  incidents  in  the  story 
of  Joseph,  481  ; Mabuse,  Adam  and 
Eve,  370,  Children  of  Christian  II, 
374  ; Q.  Massys  (copy),  portrait  of 
Erasmus,  327  ; Memling,  portrait,  238  ; 
tapestries  designed  by  B.  van  Orley,  429 
Harrach  Collection,  Vienna:  Q.  Massys 
School,  Crucifixion,  323  ; J.  van  Oost- 
sanen, portrait,  462 

Havemeyer  Collection  : Q.lMassys,  portrait 
of  Carondelet,  328,  376,  417,  427 
Hax  Collection,  Cologne : Barthel  Bruyn, 
Coronation  of  the  Virgin,  399 
Hay,  Collection  of  Hon.  John:  Memling 
School,  Crucifixion,  244 
Helleputte  Collection,  Kesselloo : J.  van 
Ej'Ck,  Madonna  with  N.  van  Maelbeke,  71 
Hermannstadt  Gallery  : H.  or  J.  van  Eyck, 
man’s  portrait,  62  ; Memling,  pair  of 
portrait  wings,  240  ; portrait  wrongly 
called  of  Roger  by  Bouts,  132 
Heseltine  Collection : Patinir  (?),  Madonna, 
349  ; Master  of  St.  Hubert,  portrait,  155 
Heyl  (von)  Collection : G.  David  School, 
Virgo  inter  Virgines,  285 
Hirsch  (L.)  Collection : Albert  Bouts,  pair 
of  wings,  258  ; Mabuse,  portrait  of 
Carondelet,  362 

Hoe  sale:  Goswin  van  der  Weyden,  triptych, 
275,  276,  388 

Hoech  sale : Mostaert,  man’s  portrait,  446 
Holford  Collection : Joos  van  Cleve, 

Madonna,  407  ; Mabuse,  man’s  portrait, 
377 

Hollitscher  Collection  : Geertgen,  Madonna, 
219 

Hoogendijk  sale  : Albert  Bouts,  Heads  of 
Christ  and  the  Virgin,  259  ; B.  van  Orley, 
Madonna,  422 

Huntingdon  Collection:  Roger  van  der 
Weyden,  Madonna,  150 
Huntingfield,  Collection  of  Lord : Van 
Haecht ; Interior  of  an  Art  Gallery,  71 


Ince  Hall  : Joos  van  Cleve,  Madonna,  404, 
406  ; J.  van  Eyck,  Madonna,  68 

Johnson  (J.  G.)  Collection  (Philadelphia) : 
Bosch,  Magi,  336,  pair  of  wings,  337,  Christ 
buffeted,  344,  Ecce  Homo,  344  ; Albert 
Bouts,  St.  Christopher,  258  ; Dirk  Bouts, 
The  Burning  Bush,  168  ; Peter  Bruegel, 
The  Hireling  Shepherd,  358,  506  ; Bruges 
Lucia  Master,  St.  Catherine,  252  ; R. 
Campin,  Heads  of  Christ  and  the  Virgin, 
119  ; R.  Campin’s  School,  Madonna 
roundel,  116  note  ; Joos  van  Cleve,  De- 
scent from  the  Cross  (after  Roger),  402  ; 
G.  David,  Madonna,  279,  Madonna  in  a 
roundel,  279,  Pieta,  282  ; H.  van  Eyck, 
St.  Francis,  60  ; J.  van  Eyck,  portrait  of 
a man,  67  ; Geertgen  (?),  St.  Martin,  215  ; 
Geertgen,  portrait  of  P.  Veenlant,  218  ; 
Isenbrant,  St.  Jerome,  303  ; Justus  of 
Ghent  (attributed).  Crucifixion,  193  ; L. 
van  Leyden,  Beheading  the  Baptist, 
474  ; Mabuse,  Madonna,  373  ; Q.  Massys, 
Penitents,  322  ; Simon  Marmion  (?), 
Crucifixion,  225,  Christ  before  Herod, 
225  ; Mostaert,  Crucifixion,  442  ; J.  van 
Oostsanen,  Crucifixion,  458  ; B.  van 
Orley,  Magi,  420  ; Patinir,  Assumption, 
351  ; Provost,  pair  of  wings,  293  ; 
Roger  van  der  Weyden,  Crucifixion, 
135  ; follower  of  Roger,  Madonna,  167  ; 
Antwerp  Mannerist  C,  Magi,  388  ; 
Master  of  Hoogstraten,  Presentation, 
383,  Madonna,  383  ; Master  of  Mansi 
Magdalen,  Salvator  Mundi,  330  ; the 
Morrison  Master,  Magi,  317  ; Ursula 
Master,  portrait  of  a youth,  208,  250  ; 
Bruges  School,  Crucifixion,  253  ; Early 
Dutch  School,  John  Baptist  and  Christ, 
221 ; Flemish  School,  portrait  of  a man, 
411  ; Haarlem  School,  Marriage  of  the 
Virgin,  203 

Kann  (R.)  sale  : Joos  van  Cleve,  Madonna, 
402  ; G.  David,  Rest  by  the  Way,  302  ; 
Isenbrant,  St.  Jerome,  303  ; Roger 
van  der  Weyden,  portrait  of  Jean  de 
Gros,  148,  Annunciation,  206 

Kaufmann  sale  : Bosch,  Ecce  Homo,  344  ; 
Albert  Bouts,  St.  Jerome,  258,  pair  of 
wings,  259  ; Barthel  Bruyn,  Nativity, 
399  ; Joos  van  Cleve,  self-portrait,  410  ; 
Colin  de  Coter,  Magdalen,  263  ; G. 
David,  Nativity,  278,  283,  SS.  John 
Baptist  and  Francis,  279,  280  ; Enge- 
brechtsen.  Crucifixion,  452  ; Geertgen, 
Nativity,  219,  469  ; Isenbrant,  copy  of 


516 


INDEX  OF  WORKS  OF  ART 


Mabuse’s  Palermo  triptych,  302  ; Jan 
Joest  (copy),  Nativity,  397  ; L.  van 
Leyden,  Madonna,  483  ; Mabuse, 
Madonna,  372  ; Memling  (?),  Madonna, 
243  ; Memling  School,  Deposition,  244  ; 
J.  van  Oostsanen,  Magi,  459  ; Patinir, 
triptych,  350,  353  ; Roger,  man’s  por- 
trait, 148,  149  ; Antwerp  Mannerist  C, 
Last  Supper,  389  ; Master  of  St.  Giles, 
pair  of  wing  panels,  191  ; Ursula  Master, 
St.  Anne  Enthroned,  208,  249  ; Virgo 
Master,  Adoration  of  the  Shepherds, 
213 

Kempen  church : Adrian  van  Overbeke, 
altar-piece,  392 

Kleinberger,  Messrs. : Engebrechtsen,  De- 
scent from  the  Cross,  449 

Lafora  Collection,  Madrid : B.  van  Orley, 
Madonna,  420 

v.  Lanna  Collection  : Dirk  Bouts  (after), 
drawings  of  angels,  167 
Lehman,  Collection  of  Mr.  Philip : P. 

Christus,  Interior  of  a Goldsmith’s  Shop, 
109  ; G.  David,  pair  of  wings,  282  ; 
Ursula  Master,  St.  Anne  and  Anne  de 
Blasere,  249 

Leipzig  Gallery  : H.  or  J.  van  Eyck,  man’s 
portrait,  63,  67 

Le  Roy,  Collection  of  M.  Martin  : G.  David, 
167,  Holy  Family,  288 
Lescarts  Collection:  B.  van  Orley  (copy), 
diptych  of  Margaret  of  Austria,  425 
Leyden  Town  Museum  : Engebrechtsen, 
Crucifixion  triptych  of  1510,  448,  449, 
450,  Mourning  over  Christ,  453  ; L. 
van  Leyden,  Last  Judgment,  481, 
portrait  drawing,  479 
Liedekerke  (L.  de)  Collection:  Joos  van 
Cleve,  diptych  of  W.  Bibaut  of  Thielt, 
402 

Liege,  St.  Bartholomew’s : Renier  de 

Huy’s  bronze  font,  15 
Lierre  church : Goswin  van  der  Weyden, 
the  Colibrant  triptych,  276 
Lille  Museum  : Dirk  Bouts,  Paradise,  168  ; 
Diirer,  Silverpoint  portrait  of  L.  van 
Leyden,  464  ; Master  of  Turin  Cruci- 
fixion, Crucifixion,  436 
Limburg-Stirum,  Collection  of  Count  de 
(Noordwijk) : Engebrechtsen,  pair  of 
wings,  451,  452  ; Bruges  School,  A Pro- 
testant Meeting,  299 

Liphart  Collection : Mabuse,  portrait,  370 
Lippmann  sale : Engebrechtsen,  Hagar 
and  Ishmael,  453  ; Isenbrant,  triptych, 
303  ; Dirk  Vellert,  Magi,  393 


Lisbon  Gallery : Bosch,  St.  Anthony 

triptych,  343  ; Diirer,  St.  Jerome,  294, 
406 

— Palace : Antwerp  Mannerist,  Holy 

Family  and  Saints,  381,  460  ; Master  of 
the  Sibyl,  Virgo  inter  Virgines,  203,  209 

Liverpool  Gallery : Peter  Bruegel  (copy). 
Resurrection,  495  ; R.  Campin,  copy  of 
his  Descent  from  the  Cross,  120,  131  ; 
Mostaert,  portrait  of  young  man,  445  ; 
Virgo  Master,  Entombment,  212  ; 
Flemish  Milanese,  Madonna,  409 

Lobkowitz,  Collection  of  Prince : Peter 
Bruegel,  June,  358,  501 

London,  British  Museum  : Jan  de  Beer,  a 
drawing,  387  ; Hans  Bol,  landscape  draw- 
ing, 358  I Bosch,  drawing,  346  ; Peter 
Bruegel,  drawings,  505  ; Peter  Coeck, 
drawings,  431 ; School  of  David,  Breviary 
of  Isabella  of  Spain,  287 ; Diirer,  por- 
trait drawing  of  Provost  (?),  294, 

portrait  drawing  of  L.  van  Leyden, 
465,  466  ; Aertgen  van  Leyden,  drawings, 
456  ; L.  van  Leyden,  drawings,  475-9, 
483  ; B.  van  Orley,  drawing  of  the 
Rich  Man’s  Feast,  423 ; Roger  van  der 
Weyden,  drawings,  135,  144;  Master  of 
St.  Hubert,  drawing  of  a procession, 
155 

— Buckingham  Palace : School  of  H.  v. 
d.  Goes,  Coronation  of  the  Virgin,  189, 
460  ; Provost,  triptych,  295  ; Goswin 
van  der  Weyden,  Magi,  275  ; Antwerp 
Mannerist  C,  Magi,  388  ; Bruges  School, 
Virgo  inter  Virgines,  217,  252,  285 

— National  Gallery : Dirk  Bouts,  Entomb- 

ment, 162,  Madonna,  166,  Virgin  and 
Saints,  167,  man’s  portrait,  171  ; Peter 
Bruegel,  Magi,  498  ; R.  Campin,  Virgin 
of  Salamanca,  114,  115,  the  Salting 

Madonna,  119,  portraits  of  a man  and 
wife,  123 ; P.  Christus,  portrait  of  a 
youth,  106,  107  ; Joos  van  Cleve, 

Madonna,  407  ; G.  David,  Christ  nailed  to 
the  Cross,  278,  portrait  of  a Bruges  clergy- 
man, 281,  Magi,  283,  St.  Jerome,  284, 
Salviati  and  Saints,  284,  Marriage  of 
St.  Catherine,  284,  Magi  and  Deposition, 
289,  351  ; J.  van  Eyck,  the  Arnolfini 
portrait  group,  48,  67,  102,  109, 

portrait  of  a man  in  a red  turban, 
67,  “Leal  Souvenir”  portrait,  67; 
H.  V.  d.  Goes,  Death  of  the  Virgin, 
173  ; Justus  of  Ghent,  Liberal  Arts,  197  ; 
Mabuse,  Magi,  362,  363,  375,  girl  as 
Magdalen,  368,  portrait  of  man  with 
rosary,  373,  portrait  of  Jacqueline, 


INDEX  OF  WORKS  OF  ART 


517 


daughter  of  Adolphus  of  Burgundy,  374, 
man’s  portrait,  376  ; Q.  Massys,  Heads 
of  Christ  and  the  Virgin  (copy),  316, 
Crucifixion,  323  ; Memling  (?),  Virgin 
with  St.  George,  206,  243  ; Morrison 
Master,  triptych,  216,  317  ; Mostaert, 
Head  of  the  Baptist,  440  ; B.  van  Orley, 
Madonna,  422  ; Patinir  and  Half-lengths 
Master,  St.  John  at  Patmos,  353;  Provost, 
Madonna,  293  ; M.  van  Reymerswael, 
Excisemen,  326  ; The  Exhumation  of 
St.  Hubert,  153,  201  ; Roger  van  der 
Weyden,  portrait  of  a woman,  136, 
Magdalen  reading,  137  ; Roger  School, 
Christ  taking  leave  of  the  Virgin, 
135  note ; Antwerp  Mannerist  E, 
Visitation  and  Flight,  390  ; a Delft 
artist.  Crucifixion  triptych,  435  ; Master 
of  St.  Bertin’s,  altar-piece  of  St.  Bertin’s, 
223  ; Master  of  St.  Giles,  Legend 
of  St.  Giles,  190  ; Brussels  School, 
portrait  vTongly  called  of  Louis  XI 
(a  copy),  271  ; Meuse  School,  landscape, 
354, 500 

Longford  Castle  : Jan  de  Beer,  triptych, 
386  ; Mabuse  (copy).  Children  of 
Christian  II,  374,  (copy)  Madonna  of 
Anne  van  Bergen,  374  ; Q.  Massys, 
portrait  of  Peter  Gillis,  319,  327,  375, 
426 

Louvain,  the  property  of  St.  Peter’s  : Dirk 
Bouts,  Last  Supper,  159,  170,  171,  St. 
Erasmus  triptych,  171,  196,  316,  vault 
paintings  of  angels  (destroyed),  262 

— Town  Hall,  Last  Judgment  by  Dirk 
Bouts  for,  168 

Liibeck,  St.  IMary’s : Antwerp  Mannerist  E 
or  Master  of  1518,  wings  of  triptych, 
301,  389 

Liitzschena  Gallery : Roger  van  der  Weyden, 
Visitation,  133,  162 

Lyons  Museum  : Albert  Bouts,  Heads  of 
Christ  and  the  Virgin,  259  ; Q.  Massys, 
Virgin  in  a Chapel,  316,  317,  322 


Mackenzie  Collection,  Mrs.  Stewart : Master 
of  St.  Giles,  Mass  in  St.  Denis,  154,  190 
Macquoid,  Collection  of  Percy:  Mabuse 
(copy),  A Knight  of  the  Golden  Fleece, 
369,  370,  425 

Madrid,  Prado  : Bosch,  The  Curse  of  Folly, 
338,  Magi  triptych,  340,  St.  Anthony, 
343  ; Dirk  Bouts,  four-panel  triptych, 
158,  161  ; R.  Campin,  Marriage  of  the 
Virgin,  112,  114,  wings  of  von  Werl 
triptych,  122,  134 ; H.  or  J.  van  Eyck  (?) 


(copy).  The  Fountain  of  Living  Water, 
59,  62,  106,  112  ; Mabuse,  Heads  of 
Christ,  the  Virgin,  and  Baptist,  368,  375, 
Madonna,  373  ; Q.  Massys  and  Patinir, 
St.  Anthony  tempted,  321,  353  ; Mos- 
taert (copy),  portrait  of  Philibert  of 
Savoy,  wrongly  called  of  Philip  the  Fair, 
443  ; B.  van  Orley,  two  Madonnas,  421, 
Holy  Family,  422  ; Patinir,  Rest  by  the 
Way,  350,  Heaven  and  Hell,  354,  St. 
Jerome,  354  ; Roger,  portrait  of  Philip 
the  Good,  148  ; Roger  School,  Crucifixion, 
135,  the  Cambrai  triptyeh,  147  ; Ant- 
werp Mannerist  A,  Magi,  386 
Madrid,  Pablo  Bosch  Collection : Joos  van 
Cleve,  Madonna,  402  ; David  School, 
Replica  of  the  Stoop  Madonna,  299  ; 
Roger  Sehool,  Crucifixion,  135 
Magdeburg  Gallery : Joos  van  Cleve  Sehool, 
Madonna,  409 

Mann,  Colleetion  of  James : Justus  of  Ghent, 
portrait,  199 

Maria-Ter-Heyde : Flemish  School,  altar- 
piece,  134 

Mather,  Collection  of  Prof. : Albert  Bouts, 
Madonna,  258 

Matthys  Collection : Roger,  half-length 

Madonna,  150 

Mechlin,  St.  Rombaut’s : Master  of  the 
Magdalen  and  the  Master  of  the  Orsoy 
Altar,  a pair  of  wings,  266 
Mercier  Collection:  Madonna  on  silk,  152 
Merode  family  Collection : R.  Campin,  the 
Inghelbrechts  Annuneiation,  118 
Mexico,  San  Carlos  Museum:  School  of 
Ouwater,  202 

Milan,  Ambrosiana  : Jan  de  Beer,  Magi, 
386,  Virgin  with  St.  Luke,  386  ; 
Geertgen,  Madonna,  219 
Minneapolis  Institute : Q.  Massys  and 
Patinir,  353 

Modena  Gallery : Joos  van  Cleve,  Madonna 
and  St.  Anne,  404 

Morgan,  Collection  of  J.  P. : G.  David, 
Rest  by  the  Way,  285,  350,  351  ; Mem- 
ling, portrait,  238  ; Ursula  Master, 
Madonna,  250  ; Freneh  School,  four- 
teenth-century sketchbook,  23  ; Early 
French  School,  diptych,  113 
Morrison  Collection  : The  INIorrison  Master, 
Madonna,  317,  407 

Muir  Mackenzie,  Collection  of  Lord  : H.  van 
der  Elburcht,  St.  Peter  fishing,  355 
Muller  of  Amsterdam,  Messrs. : Goswin  van 
der  Weyden,  Tongerloo  altar,  272 
Munieh,  National  Museum : G.  David, 
small  diptych,  288 


518 


INDEX  OF  WORKS  OF  ART 


Munich,  Pinakothek  : Albert  Bouts,  Annun- 
ciation, 258  ; Dirk  Bouts,  Betrayal  and 
St.  John,  165,  Snoij  family  triptych,  170; 
Peter  Bruegel,  The  Land  of  Cockaigne, 
503  ; Joos  van  Cleve,  the  largerHackeney 
triptych,  404  ; Colin  de  Coter,  SS.  Peter 
and  John  Baptist,  265  ; G.  David,  Magi, 
282  ; Isenbrant,  Virgo  inter  Virgines, 
285,  301,  Rest  by  the  Way,  302  ; Wm. 
Key,  Pieta,  316  ; L.  van  Leyden,  Ma- 
donna and  donors,  480  ; Mabuse, 
Danae,  373  ; Q.  Massys  (copy).  Cruci- 
fixion, 323  ; Memling,  Seven  Joys,  232  ; 
Memling  School,  Virgo  inter  Virgines, 
244  ; B.  van  Orley,  St.  Norbert,  420, 
(after  Q.  Massys),  John  Carondelet,  426  ; 
Patinir  and  Half-lengths  Master,  Magi, 
353  ; M.  van  Reymerswael,  lawyer  in 
his  office,  326  ; Roger  van  der  Weyden 
copy  of  lost  Descent  from  the  Cross,  137 ; 
the  St.  Columba  altar-piece,  147  ; copy  of 
the  Virgin  with  St.  Luke,  132  ; Antwerp 
Mannerist  A,  Magi  (with  forged  signa- 
ture “ Henricus  Blasius  ”),  386  ; Master 
of  the  Mansi  Magdalen,  copy  of  Mira- 
culous Madonna,  298,  329  ; wrongly 
attributed  to  Sotte  Cleve,  the  Man  with 
the  Fine  Hand,  415,  417 
Murray,  Fairfax  Collection : L.  van  Leyden, 
drawing,  470 


Naarden,  St.  Guy’s : Dutch  School,  vault 
paintings,  434 

Namur  Museum : Henry  Patinir,  Good 
Samaritan,  356 

Naples  Gallery : Peter  Bruegel,  Blind 

leading  Blind,  505,  The  Misanthrope, 
506  ; Joos  van  Cleve,  Crucifixion  triptych, 
403,  Magi,  405  ; J.  van  Oostsanen, 
Nativity,  458  ; B.  van  Orley  (copy), 
Charles  V,  424  ; Roger  van  der  Weyden, 
copy  of  lost  Deposition,  137 

Nemes  Collection : G.  David,  Madonna, 
285,  Pieta,  286 

New  York  Historical  Society : G.  David, 
Madonna  and  Saints,  289 

— Metropolitan  Museum  : Bosch,  Magi, 

336  ; Dirk  Bouts,  man’s  portrait,  164  ; 
Peter  Bruegel,  drawing  of  a village  street, 
358,  496  ; R.  Campin,  Virgin  of  Sala- 
manca, 114,  115;  P.  Christus,  Madonna, 
69,  105  ; G.  David,  Christ  and  the  Holy 
Women,  288,  Crucifixion,  291  ; Enge- 
brechtsen.  Crucifixion,  453  ; Isenbrant, 
Man  of  Sorrows  and  Mater  Dolorosa, 
304  ; L.  van  Leyden,  painting  on  linen. 


481  ; Q.  Massys,  Magi,  319  ; Memling, 
Madonna  with  St.  Catherine,  231,  por- 
traits of  Thos.  Postinari  and  wife,  238, 
man’s  portrait,  240  ; Roger  (?),  the 
Ashburnham  Annunciation,  206,  261  ; 
Antwerp  Mannerist  A,  St.  Francis,  386 
Newcastle,  Messrs.  Browne  & Browne: 
J.  van  Eyck,  Head  of  Christ,  full  face, 
128  note,  259 

Nielson,  Collection  of  Madame:  Joos  van 
Cleve,  Madonna,  402,  404 
Nijland  Collection : Lucas  Gassel,  land- 
scape, 410 

Normanton,  Collection  of  Lord:  School  of 
Sotte  Cleve,  woman’s  portrait,  415 
Northbrook,  Collection  of  Lord  : Jan  de 
Beer,  Virgin  with  St.  Anne,  386  ; Enge- 
brechtsen,  Mordecai,  451  ; Isenbrant, 
Madonna,  303,  St.  Ildephonso,  303  ; 
School  of  Memling,  Madonna,  236,  244  ; 
B.  van  Orley,  Madonna,  426  ; M.  van 
Reymerswael,  Call  of  St.  Matthew,  326  ; 
Roger  van  der  Weyden,  small  Madonna, 
133 

Nuremberg  Gallery : Dirk  Bouts,  Resurrec- 
tion, 165  ; Engebrechtsen,  man’s  por- 
trait, 451  note  ; drawing  copied  from  J. 
van  Eyck’s  Maelbeke  triptych,  71  ; L. 
van  Leyden,  Moses  striking  the  Rock, 
488  ; the  Morrison  Master,  Madonna, 
318  ; Master  of  Moulins,  portrait  of 
Charles  de  Bourbon,  188  ; School  of 
Wilhelm,  the  Virgin  with  pea-blossoms,  11 


Odiot  sale  : Joos  van  Cleve,  Madonna,  152  ; 

Memling  School,  Magi,  244 
Oldenburg  Gallery : J.  van  Oostsanen, 
portrait  of  Duke  of  East  Friesland,  461 
Oporto : Brussels  School,  King  Manuel  of 
Portugal  and  others  in  devotion,  267 
Oppenheimer  (Henry)  Collection : Patinir, 
St.  Jerome,  354 

Orsoy  church,  near  Wesel : Master  of  the 
Orsoy  Altar-piece,  the  altar-piece,  266 
Osma,  collection  of  Senor  de  : H.  v.  d. 

Goes  (copy).  Magi,  176 
Otlet  sale : Jan  Massys,  Judith,  331 ; School 
of  Memling,  Deposition,  244  ; Bruges 
School,  archaistic  Crucifixion,  253 
Oxford,  Ashmolean  Museum : Roger  School, 
drawings,  139  ; drawing  in  style  of 
Jacquemart,  23 

— Christ  Church  : school  of  Sotte  Cleve, 
two  men’s  portraits,  415  ; H.  v.  d.  Goes, 
Descent  from  the  Cross  (fragment),  177 ; 
(after),  drawing  of  Jacob  and  Rachel,  177 


INDEX  OF  WORKS  OF  ART 


519 


Pacully  Collection : Memling  School,  St. 
Ildefonso,  245 

Padua,  Museo  Civico  : Crucifixion  of  the 
school  of  H.  van  Eyck,  49  note 

Palencia  Cathedral : Jan  Joest,  altar-piece, 
397 

Palermo  Museum  : Mabuse,  small  triptych, 
302,  303,  365 

Palmer,  former  Collection  of  Sir  Francis : 
copy  of  Roger  van  der  Weyden’s  Virgin 
with  St.  Luke,  132 

Panmvitz  Collection : Master  of  Frankfurt, 
pair  of  wings,  384 

Paris,  Bibl.  nat.  : Psalter  by  Beauneveu, 
21  ff.  ; Grandes  Heures  by  Jacquemart, 
21  ff.,  35  ; Petites  Heures  by  Jacque- 
mart, 21  ff.  ; Pontifical  MS.,  27 

— Cluny  Museum  : Jan  de  Beer,  Magi,  387 

— Jacquemart- Andre  Museum  : Joos  van 
Cleve,  portrait  of  Maximilian,  401,  410  ; 
Q.  Massys,  man’s  portrait,  320,  418  ; 
Heures  de  Marechal  de  Boucicaut,  22  ; 
Bruges  School,  Madonna,  254 

— Louvre  : Dirk  Bouts,  Pieta,  163,  Hell, 
168  ; Peter  Bruegel,  Cripple-beggars, 
504 ; R.  Campin,  Madonna  drawing, 
123  ; Joos  van  Cleve,  pair  of  wings  of 
1507,  400,  Madonna  with  St.  Bernard, 
401,  Christ  Blessing,  403,  Mourning 
over  Christ,  407-8  ; Colin  de  Coter, 
Trinity  (after  Campin),  262,  Virgin  with 
St.  Luke,  263  ; G.  David,  Sedano  trip- 
tych, 116,  279,  Marriage  at  Cana,  284  ; 
Hubert  and  John  van  Eyck,  the  Rolin 
Madonna,  60,  64  ; Geertgen,  Lazarus, 
218  ; Justus  of  Ghent,  Philosophers, 
194  ; L.  van  Leyden,  drawings,  479  ; 
Mabuse,  diptych  of  Carondelet,  372  ; 
Simon  Marmion  (?),  Finding  of  the  Cross, 
225  ; Jan  Massys,  David  and  Bathsheba, 
332  ; Q.  Massys,  Pieta,  316,  324,  Gold- 
smith and  Wife,  316,  325  ; Memling, 
Virgo  inter  Virgines,  217,  244,  woman’s 
portrait,  240  ; Memling  (?),  St.  Sebastian, 
243  ; Mostaert,  portrait  of  John  van 
Wassenaer,  444 ; B.  van  Orley,  Holy 
Family,  422,  tapestries,  428 ; (copy), 
Charles  V,  370,  424 ; Roger  van  der 
Weyden,  drawing  after  lost  Deposition, 
137,  small  triptych,  143,  drawing,  152, 
402  ; Annunciation,  133  ; Bellechose  (?), 
Vie  de  St.  Denis,  27, 1 13  ; entombment  in 
the  style  of  Broederlam,  29  ; drawing  of 
the  Coronation  of  the  Virgin  in  the  style  of 
Jacquemart,  23,  37  ; the  Trinity,  attri- 
buted to  Malouel,  27  ; Jean  Pepin’s 
effigy  of  Robert  d’ Artois,  16,  18  ; figure 


of  Charles  V from  the  Portal  of  the 
Celestins,  18,  32  ; Brussels  School,  A 
Preacher,  270  ; Dutch  School,  fifteenth 
century.  Madonna  with  St.  Anne,  208  ; 
Early  French  School,  small  Pieta,  113, 
Pieta  in  a roundel,  113  ; French  School, 
c.  1475,  Parlement  Altar-piece,  146 
Peltzer  Collection : Patinir,  Preaching  of  the 
Baptist,  350 

Penrhyn,  Collection  of  Lord : Dirk  Bouts, 
Virgin  and  St.  Luke,  166,  315 
Petrograd,  Hermitage  : Dirk  Bouts,  y\n- 
nunciation,  163  ; R.  Campin,  Madonna, 
123  ; H.  van  Eyck,  the  Crucifixion  and 
Last  Judgment,  60  ; J.  van  Eyck,  The 
Annunciation,  64,  65  ; L.  van  Leyden, 
Healing  the  Blind,  484  ; Mabuse,  Cruci- 
fixion, 369  ; Provost,  Deipara  Virgo, 
295  ; copy  of  Roger  van  der  Weyden’s 
Virgin  with  St.  Luke,  132 
Phillips,  Collection  of  Sir  Claude : Bosch, 
Christ  and  the  Money-changers,  345 
Piacenza  Gallery : Provost,  Madonna,  293 
Pisa  Gallery  : Engebrechtsen  School,  pair 
of  wings,  460  ; Bruges  Lucia  Master,  252 
Poll,  Colleetion  of  van  der;  Jan  de  Beer, 
Pieta,  drawing,  387 

Porges  Collection : Joos  van  Cleve,  An- 
nunciation, 403 

Pourtales,  Collection  of  Count  F. : Dirk 
Bouts,  Madonna,  166  ; M.  van  Rey- 
merswael.  Courtesan  and  Lover,  326  ; 
Antwerp  Mannerist  A,  pair  of  wings,  386 
Powis,  Collection  of  Lord:  Roger  van  der 
Weyden,  Pieta,  135,  136 
Prague  Gallery  : Geertgen,  Magi  triptych, 
215  ; H.  V.  d.  Goes,  Death  of  the 
Virgin,  174 ; Mabuse,  Virgin  and  St. 
Luke,  371,  382,  .390,  man’s  portrait, 
375  ; Master  of  St.  Giles,  Christ  before 
Pilate,  191 

Princeton  N.J.  University  Gallery : Bosch, 
Pilate  Washing  Hands,  344 


Raezynski  Collection : Q.  Massys,  Ma- 
donna with  Lamb,  318,  321 

Radowitz  Collection,  Madrid ; Master  of  the 
Solomons,  wings  of  a carved  altar-piece, 
260 

Radziwill,  Collection  of  Prince : Virgin  in  a 
Chamber,  236 

Rikoff  Collection  : Isenbrant,  Madonna,  308 

Rohrer  Collection : J.  van  Oostsanen,  St. 
Barbara,  460 

Rome,  Academy  of  St.  Luke : G.  David 
School,  Virgo  inter  Virgines,  285 


520 


INDEX  OF  WORKS  OF  ART 


Rome,  Barberini  Palace  : Justus  of  Ghent, 
Philosophers,  194 

— Colonna  Gallery : B.  van  Orley  (?),  Seven 
Sorrows  and  Seven  Joys,  422 

— Corsini  Gallery:  Simon  Marmion  (?), 
Crucifixion,  225 

— Doria  Gallery  : Peter  Bruegel  (copy), 
Naples  Bay,  489  ; (copy).  Skating  Scene, 
501  ; Isenbrant,  half-length  lady’s  por- 
trait, 305  ; Flemish  School,  diptych  of 
Antonio  Siciliano,  365 

Rothschild,  Collection  of  Baron  E.  de : Enge- 
brechtsen,  roundel,  454  ; Giovannino 
de’  Grassi’s  sketchbook,  39 

— Collection  of  Baron  G.  de : H.  van  Eyck, 
the  Steenken  Madonna,  59,  64 

— Collection  of  Baron  M.  de : Heures  de 
Turin,  35,  42 

Rotterdam  Gallery  : Dirk  Bouts  School, 
drawings,  167 ; J.  van  Oostsanen, 
portraits  of  the  Van  Teylingens,  461  ; 
B.  van  Orley,  Crucifixion,  424,  426 

Rouen  Gallery:  G.  David,  Virgo  inter 
Virgines,  284 

Rovigo  Gallery : Mabuse,  Venus,  373 

Rutland,  Colleetion  of  the  Duke  of : J.  van 
Oostsanen,  portrait  of  the  Duke  of  East 
Friesland,  461 

Ryerson  Collection  (Chicago) : L.  van 
Leyden,  Magi,  471 


St.  Germain-en-Laye  Municipal  Museum : 
Bosch  follower.  Thimble  and  Pea  Trick, 
346 

Salzburg  Museum : Virgo  Master,  Magi,  213 
Schloss  Collection : Mabuse,  Venus  and 
Cupid,  373  ; B.  van  Orley,  Madonna,  422 
Schouwaloff  Collection : Joos  van  Cleve, 
Madonna,  409 

Schwerin  Gallery ; B.  van  Orley,  Abraham’s 
Sacrifice,  420 

Sedelmayer  sale : the  Morrison  Master, 
Magi,  317 

Seymour-Trower  sale  (1921):  Peter  Bruegel, 
The  Drunken  Parent,  503 
Sigmaringen  Gallery  : G.  David,  Annuncia- 
tion, 283  ; Jan  Joest,  Pieta,  397  ; Q. 
Massys  School,  Banker  and  Wife,  325  ; 
Bruges  School,  Madonna  triptych,  253 
Soest,  Wiesen  Church : Westphalian  School, 
The  Virgin’s  Kindred,  216 
Sommier  Collection:  School  of  Memling, 
Madonna,  236,  244 

Somzee  (de)  sale  : Albert  Bouts,  Head  of 
Christ,  259  ; Isenbrant,  Magdalen  in  the 
Desert,  302,  SS.  John  Baptist  and 


Jerome,  302  ; J.  van  Oostsanen,  Magi, 
459  ; Virgo  Master,  Adoration  of  the 
Shepherds,  211 

Spanish  Gallery,  London  : Colin  de  Coter, 
SS.  Michael  and  Agnes,  264  ; J.  van  Oost- 
sanen, Nativity,  458  ; Bruges  Lucia 
Master,  triptych,  252  ; Flemish  School, 
pair  of  wings  dated  1451,  155 
Spencer  - Churchill  Collection : Flemish 

Milanese,  Madonna  with  Cherries,  409  ; 
Joos  van  Cleeve,  a pair  of  portraits,  411 
Spiridon,  Messrs.:  Joos  van  Cleve,  Madonna, 
401,  402 

Stephenson  (Mrs.)  Collection  : Master  of  the 
Sibyl,  Madonna,  203,  208 
Stockholm  Museum:  L.  van  Leyden, 

portrait  drawing,  479 
Stolk  (van)  Collection  : Mostaert,  Christ 
Crowned  with  Thorns,  440,  West  Indian 
landscape,  442  ; Ursula  Master,  Madonna, 
250 

Stoop  Collection : G.  David,  Madonna,  285 
Strasburg  Gallery  : Simon  Marmion  (?), 
Mater  Dolorosa,  225,  Man  of  Sorrows, 
225  ; Memling  (?),  six-panel  altar-piece, 
243 

Stroganoff  Collection  (Rome) : Q.  Massys, 
portrait  of  Erasmus,  327  ; Mostaert, 
Stem  of  Jesse,  438 

Stuttgart  Gallery  : Colin  de  Coter,  Descent 
from  the  Cross,  265  ; J.  van  Oostsanen, 
triptych,  461 

Sutherland,  Collection  of  Duke  of : Bruges 
School,  a Marriage  picture,  253 
Sutton-Nelthorpe  Collection:  Bruges  School, 
St.  Francis  leaving  Home,  298 

Taylor,  Collection  of  J.  E. : Memling, 
youth’s  portrait,  239 

Thiem  sale:  Isenbrant  (after  Diirer)  and 
Patinir,  Flight  into  Egypt,  352 
Thompson,  Collection  of  Mr.  Yates:  Heures 
of  Jeanne  de  France,  Queen  of  Navarre,  18 
Tourcoing,  Collection  at:  Colin  de  Coter, 
pair  of  wings  with  royal  portraits,  264 
Tournay  Gallery : J.  van  Eeckele,  St. 

Bernard,  297  ; Mabuse,  St.  Donatian, 
377 

Traumann  Colleetion  : G.  David,  Madonna, 
289  ; B.  van  Orley,  Madonna,  421 
Trevi  Museum  : Justus  of  Ghent,  Magi,  199 
Trivulzio,  Collection  of  Principe  di : Heures 
de  Milan,  35,  42-51 

Troyes  Museum : Pieta  attributed  to  Belle- 
chose,  28,  113 

Turin  Gallery  : J.  de  Beer,  Pieta,  387  ; 
H.  van  Eyck,  St.  Francis,  60  ; Memling, 


INDEX  OF  WORKS  OF  ART 


521 


Seven  Sorrows,  232  ; B.  van  Orley,  part 
of  an  altar-piece,  422  ; Roger  van  der 
Weyden,  diptych,  133  ; Master  of  the 
Turin  Crucifixion,  Crucifixion,  436  ; 
Dutch  School,  Madonna,  438 

Turin  Library:  Heures  de  Turin  (burnt), 
35,  42-51 

Turner,  Collection  of  Sir  Charles  : a follower 
of  Geertgen,  St.  Dominic,  277 ; Ursula 
Master,  Madonna,  208 

Urbino,  Sta.  Agata:  Justus  of  Ghent, 
Institution  of  the  Sacrament,  195 

Utrecht,  Archiepiscopal  Museum  : Enge- 
brechtsen.  Crucifixion,  454  ; Geertgen, 
Man  of  Sorrows.  219  ; follower  of 
Geertgen,  Virgin  and  St.  Anne,  221  ; J. 
van  Oostsanen  (copy),  Pieta,  460  ; 
a Delft  artist.  Virgin  with  St.  Bernard, 
436  ; Master  of  Amsterdam  St.  Lxicia, 
Crucifixion,  220,  458  ; Master  of  Last 
Supper,  triptych,  392 

— Kunstliefde  Museum : Dutch  School, 
fifteenth  century,  votive  picture,  275 

Valencia,  Collegio  del  Patriarca:  copy  of 
Dirk  Bouts  triptych,  159 

— Private  collection  at : P.  Christus,  por- 
trait of  a Carthusian,  108 

Valenciennes  Museum : Master  of  Frank- 
furt, Nativity,  384,  400 

Valkenburg  Collection  (The  Hague) : L.  van 
Leyden,  man’s  portrait,  475 

Venice  Academy  : Bosch,  Heaven  and  Hell, 
343  ; Mabuse,  drawing  of  the  Herm- 
aphrodite, 365  ; Memling,  youth’s  por- 
trait, 239  ; Roger,  portrait  of  L. 
Froment,  148 

— Correr  Museum : L.  van  Leyden,  portrait 
drawing  of  a youth,  476 

— Library  of  St.  Mark : the  Grimani 
Breviary,  188,  287 

Versailles  Palace:  Early  French  School  (c. 
1425),  “ Garden  of  Love  ” of  Philip  the 
Good,  314,  336 

Verulam,  Collection  of  Lord:  P.  Christus, 
portrait  of  Ed.  Grimston,  108  ; Mabuse, 
boy’s  portrait,  PI.  XVHI 

Vienna  Academy : Bosch,  Last  Judgment, 
345 

— Albertina : Jan  de  Beer,  drawing  of 
Marriage  of  the  Virgin,  387  ; Peter 
Bruegel,  drawings,  493,  499  ; drawing 
copied  from  J.  van  Eyck’s  Maelbeke 
triptych,  71  ; B.  van  Orley  (?),  drawing 
for  window-glass,  429  ; Dirk  Vellert, 
cartoon  for  a window,  393 


Vienna  Gallery:  Bosch,  St.  Jerome  trip- 
tych, 338,  Crucifixion  of  St.  Julia,  344  ; 
Peter  Bruegel,  A Storm  at  Sea,  358,  496, 
Hunters  in  the  Snow,  358,  Nest-Robbers, 
358,  Battle  of  the  Jews,  358,  497, 
Martinmas,  494,  Carnival  and  Lent, 
496,  Children’s  Games,  496,  Tower  of 
Babel,  497,  Christ  Bearing  the  Cross, 
498,  Massacre  of  the  Innocents,  501, 
January,  501,  February,  501,  Autumn, 
501,  Conversion  of  St.  Paul,  503, 
Wedding  Feast,  504,  Peasant  Dance, 
504,  Nest-Robbers,  506  ; Joos  van 
Cleve,  Madonna,  406  ; G.  David,  St. 
Michael,  286  ; J.  van  Eyck,  portrait  of 
Cardinal  Albergati,  67,  portrait  of  John 
de  Leeuw,  67,  68  ; Geertgen,  wing  panel, 
214,  218  ; H.  v.  d.  Goes,  diptych, 
175  ; Mabuse,  Madonna,  377,  Madonna 
with  St.  Luke,  377  ; Jan  Massys,  Lot 
and  his  Daughters,  332  ; Memling, 
Madonna,  236,  317  ; J.  van  Oostsanen, 
St.  Jerome,  458  ; B.  van  Orley,  SS. 
Thomas  and  Matthias,  420  ; Patinir, 
Baptism  of  Christ,  350  ; (Nos.  667,  670, 
671,  672),  355  ; Patinir  (after).  Martyr- 
dom of  St.  Catherine,  353,  409  ; Peter 
Pourbus,  Olivarez’  portrait,  311  ; Roger 
van  der  Weyden,  small  diptych,  133  ; 
Crucifixion,  135 

— Liechtenstein  Gallery  : Jan  de  Cock, 
SS.  Paul  and  Anthony,  385 ; H.  v.  d. 
Goes,  Magi,  175,  178  ; Q.  Massys,  por- 
trait of  a Cardinal,  319,  327,  Crucifixion, 
322,  323  ; Memling,  Madonnas,  236 

Virnich  Collection : Colin  de  Coter,  St. 
Michael,  265 

Vollrads,  Schloss,  near  Wiesbaden:  P. 
Cristus,  Madonna,  110 

Walle,  Collection  of  Van  de : Franco- 
Flemish  School,  A Preacher,  226 

Wantage  Collection : G.  David,  six  predella 
panels,  286 

Warneck  Collection:  Dirk  Bouts,  portrait 
of  a man,  163 

Warren  Collection : Madonna  in  Silk,  152 

Wassermann,  Collection  of  Max:  Mabuse, 
Madonna,  373 

Weber  sale:  Barthel  Bruyn,  Virgin  and 
St.  Anne,  400 

Weimar  Museum : L.  van  Leyden,  portrait 
drawing,  479 

Wernher  Collection  : Memling  (?),  Madonna 
167 

Westminster,  Collection  of  Duke  of : School 
of  Memling,  Madonna  with  Angels,  116 


522 


INDEX  OF  WORKS  OF  ART 


Westminster  Abbey:  portrait  of  Richard  II, 
23,  26 

Widener  Collection : Colin  de  Coter,  St. 
John,  263,  324  ; G.  David,  three  panels, 
286 

Wied  Collection : J.  van  Oostsanen,  Magi, 
459  ; B.  van  Orley,  diptych  of  Regent 
Margaret,  422 

Wilczeck,  Collection  of  Count : copy  of 
Roger  van  der  Weyden’s  Virgin  with 
St,  Luke,  132 

Willett  (Henry),  Collection  of : 150,  168, 
269,  296,  446 

Wilton,  Collection  of  Lord  Pembroke : 
II.  V.  d.  Goes,  Nativity,  176  ; L.  van 
Leyden,  Card-players,  466,  480  ; Mabuse 
(copy),  Children  of  Christian  II,  374 

Windsor  Castle : Sotte  Cleve,  portraits  of 
self  and  wife,  416  ; Justus  of  Ghent, 
A Lecture,  198  ; M.  van  Reymerswael, 
Excisemen,  326 


Winthrop  Collection : the  Ursula  Master, 
Madonna,  152  note,  250 
Wolfenbiittel  Library : J.  van  Eyck,  draw- 
ing of  the  Annunciation  in  a church,  70 
Worcester,  Mass.,  Gallery  : Joos  van  Cleve, 
man’s  portrait,  PI.  XXII 
Worlitz  Gallery : Dirk  Bouts,  St.  John, 
165  ; P.  Christus,  Crucifixion,  106  ; Roger, 
portrait  of  a woman,  136  ; Brussels 
School,  portrait  of  a man,  271 
Wurzburg  Library : Mostaert,  portrait  of 
Josine,  daughter  of  John  van  Egmont, 
wife  of  John  van  Wassenaer,  444 


Yarborough,  Collection  of  Lord : Flemish 
Milanese  artist.  Madonna,  318 


Zutphen,  St.  Walburga’s : vault  paintings 
in,  160 


GENERAL  INDEX 


Aalst,  Paulus  van,  son  of  Peter  Coeck,  373 
Adrichen,  Albert  van,  his  altar-piece  by 
Mostaert,  439 
iEgidius,  see  Gillis 
Aert,  Claesz,  456 
Aertgen  van  Leyden,  456 
Albany,  Alexander  Duke  of,  179 
Albergati,  Cardinal,  67,  126,  133 
Alkemade  (van)  family,  441 
Alkmaar,  painting  at,  433,  456 
Alps  : view  of  the,  50,  60  ; visited  and 
sketched  by  Peter  Bruegel,  488-9 
Amsterdam  : Gillis  van  Coninxloo  at,  359  ; 
as  an  art  centre,  432,  463  ; Jacob  van 
Oostsanen  at,  456,  463 
Angelico,  Fra,  37,  103 

Angels  playing  harp  and  lute,  their  frequent 
introduction  in  Flemish  and  other 
pictures,  114 
Anjou,  Louis  Duke  of,  16 
Anthony  “ le  grand  Batard  ” de  Bour- 
gogne, 237 

Antiques,  studies  of,  365,  371 
Antwerp  : Painters  Guild  banquet,  95, 

406  ; Lady  Day  procession  at,  97  ; con- 
nexion of  H.  V.  d.  Goes  and  Justus  of 
Ghent  with,  174,  193  ; growth  and 
prosperity  of,  247,  314  ; as  an  art  centre, 
263,  313  ; G.  David  at,  278,  288,  349  ; 
Provost  at,  292  ; Quentin  Massys  settles 
at,  312  ; Patinir  at,  349,  352  ; Mabuse 
at,  362,  382  ; Mannerist  Painters,  380- 
96  (Chap.  XXVI),  420,  Group  A 386, 
Group  B (Jan  de  Beer  ?)  386,  Group  C 
388,  Group  D 389,  Group  E 389  ; 
Joos  van  Cleve  settled  at,  403  ; L.  van 
Leyden  at,  468,  473,  478,  480  ; Peter 
Bruegel  at,  487,  489-97 
Arnolfini,  .John,  and  his  wife,  66-8 
Arras,  J.  Daret  at,  126 
Artists,  education  of,  89  ff. 

Baerle,  N.  Brabant,  birthplace  of  P. 
Christus,  104 

Bajazet  II,  sends  likeness  of  Christ  to 
Innocent  VIII,  235 


Baldung,  Hans,  373 
Bandol  of  Bruges,  Jacques,  19,  34 
Barbari,  Jacopo  de’,  365,  371,  373,  437,  455 
Baroncelli,  Pierantonio,  portrait,  239 
Basket  in  pictures  by  David,  Patinir,  and 
Joos  van  Cleve,  350,  352 
Bavaria,  Duke  William  of,  work  for,  on 
the  Heures  de  Turin  by  the  Van  Eycks, 
43-53,  59,  112 

— Jacqueline  of,  45 

— John  of.  Count  of  Holland,  employs 
J.  van  Eyck,  59,  160 

Beaugrant,  Guy,  sculptor,  306 
Beaumetz,  Jean  de,  27,  83 
Beauneveu,  Andre,  18,  21-3,  26 
Beaze,  Jacques  de,  woodcarver,  28 
Bedehamber  furniture,  81 
Beer,  John  de,  313,  386 
Belfreys,  87 
Bellechose,  Henri,  27 
Bellegambe,  421 
Benson,  Ambrose,  301 
Berry,  John  Duke  of,  16,  20,  21,  23,  26,  35, 
39-47,  55  ; his  New  Year  banquet,  48, 
77 

Berthoz,  Hippolyte  de,  and  wife,  tbeir 
portraits  by  Hugo  van  der  Goes  painted 
on  a wing  of  a triptych  by  Dirk  Bouts, 
169,  183 

Binnink  family,  miniaturists  of  Ghent,  188, 
194,  209,  287 

Bisticci,  Vespasiano  de.  Librarian  at  Ur- 
bino,  194 

Bladelin,  Treasurer,  picture  for,  by  Roger, 
146,  149 

Blasere,  Anne  de,  portrait  by  the  Ursula 
Master,  249 

Bles,  Herri  met  de,  355,  380 
Blondeel,  Lancelot,  306,  309 
Bol,  Hans,  358 

Boncle,  Sir  Edward,  Provost  of  Trinity 
College,  Edinburgh,  picture  for  him  by 
H.  V.  d.  Goes,  178 

Book-illustration  in  fifteenth  century,  273 
Bosch,  Jerome,  33L-17  (Chap.  XXHI), 
354,  385,  487,  490-2,  505 


523 


524 


GENERAL  INDEX 


Boschhuyzen,  Elizabeth  van,  wife  of  Lucas 
van  Leyden,  467 
Boulogne,  Hue  de,  149 
Bourbon,  Cardinal  Charles  de,  portrait,  188 
Bourg,  Jean  Marende  de  (sculptor),  425 
Bourges  Cathedral,  26 
Bouts,  Albert,  159,  168,  257-9,  312,  315 

— Dirk,  158-72,  257 

the  younger,  159,  257 

Bouvignes,  Patinir  born  at,  348 
Bracque  of  Tournay,  Jehan,  Roger’s  paint- 
ing for,  143 

Bramante,  191 

Broederlam,  Melchior,  28-9,  118 
Bronckhorst,  Joost  van,  portrait  by  Mos- 
taert,  444 

Brou  at  Bourg-en-Bresse  (Ain),  church  of, 
424-5 

Bruegel,  Peter,  357,  486-508  (Chap. 

XXXTI) 

Bruges : Town  Hall,  66,  87,  309  ; home  and 
studio  of  J.  van  Eyck,  66,  104  ; great- 
ness of,  85  ff.  ; home  of  P.  Christus, 
104  ; Memling’s  home,  228  ; Booksellers 
Guild,  232,  307  ; decline  of,  246,  315  ; 
home  of  Gerard  David,  277  ; views  in, 
284,  310  ; Provost  at,  292  ; Isenbrant  at, 
300  ; Patinir  at,  350-1 
Brussels  : Roger  van  der  Weyden,  town- 
painter  at,  130,  142,  153  ; Dirk  Bouts 
at,  161  ; home  of  Colin  de  Coter,  261  ; 
the  Burgendael,  267 ; La  Folie  de 
Feuillye,  268  ; Bernard  van  Orley  at, 
419  ; Peter  Bruegel  settled  at,  497 
Bruyn,  Barthel,  398-400 
Bugatto,  Zanetto,  107,  144,  227 
Bultyne,  Peter,  picture  for,  by  Memling, 
233 

Burgkmair,  Hans,  450 
Burgundy,  Adolphus  of,  and  his  daughter 
Jacqueline,  374 

— Charles  the  Rash,  Duke  of,  130,  147, 
229,  237,  238  ; his  accession  fete,  176  ; 
marriage  fete  at  Bruges,  177 

— Margaret  of  York,  Duchess  of,  wife  of 
Charles  the  Rash,  177,  229,  237 

— Jean  Sans  Peur,  Duke  of,  27,  77,  113  ; 
his  tomb,  32 

— Jeanne  la  Folle,  Duchess  of,  247,  264, 
267 

— Mary,  Duchess  of,  wife  of  Emperor 
Maximilian,  237,  251 

— Michelle  de  France,  Duchess  of,  149 

— Philip  the  Fair,  Duke  of,  247,  264,  267, 
424 

— Philip  the  Good,  Duke  of,  59,  66,  148, 
227,  246 


Burgundy,  Philip  the  Hardy,  Duke  of,  16, 
27,  28,  30,  36,  113  ; his  tomb,  31 

— Philip  of,  bastard  son  of  Philip  the  Good, 
362-74 

Buys  family  of  painters,  the,  435,  456 

Calcar,  Jan  Joest  at,  397 
Calmpthout,  donation  of,  memorial  picture, 
150,  274 

Cambrai,  Miraculous  Madonna  copied  by 
P.  Christus,  105 

Campin,  Robert,  103,  104,  107,  111-25 
(Chap.  IX),  130,  131,  140,  150,  173,  256, 
262,  335,  352,  403 

Campine,  the  Limbourg,  111,  487,  505 
Cannius,  Nicholas,  preacher,  446 
Cantor’s  staff,  a,  285 

Capelle,  Richard  de  Visch  van  der,  G. 

David’s  picture  for,  285 
Carondelet,  John,  328,  362,  363,  366,  372, 
375,  376,  417,  426 
Casenbroot,  Peter,  247 
Champmol  Abbey,  near  Dijon,  work  done 
at  or  for,  27-34,  113 

Charles  V,  King  of  France,  16,  20  ; his 
effigy,  18,  27 

— — Emperor,  296,  306,  370,  424,  489 
Charolais,  Count  of,  see  Charles  the  Rash, 

Duke  of  Burgundy 

Charrot,  John,  Bishop  of  Tournay,  altar- 
piece  painted  for  him  by  Roger,  138 
Chiaroscuro,  development  of,  165,  219, 
364,  469 

Christian  II,  King  of  Denmark,  370,  374 
Christina  of  Denmark,  374 
Christus,  Peter,  69,  101-10  (Chap.  IX),  215 
Claeis,  Peter,  307 

Claeissins,  Peter,  the  elder,  and  others  of 
the  name,  307 

Clapis,  Peter  de,  his  portrait  by  Bruyn,  399 
Clercq,  Abbot  of  St.  Vaast,  altar-piece 
painted  by  J.  Daret  for  Jean  du,  126 
Cleve,  Cornelis  van,  called  Sotte  Cleve,  406, 
413-18 

— Henry  van,  313,  314 

— Joos  van,  152,  353,  398-413 
Clouets,  the,  326,  331 

Cnoop,  Cornelia,  wife  of  G.  David,  278,  287 
Cock,  Jan  de,  357,  384 

— Jerome,  publisher  of  prints,  son  of  Jan 
de  Cock,  341,  345,  356,  384,  487,  489, 
490,  495,  498 

— Mathias,  son  of  Jan  de  Cock,  357,  487 
Coeck  of  Alost,  Peter,  391,  430,  487,  497 
Coene,  Jacques,  29,  40 

Cologne,  visited  by  Hugo  v.  d.  Goes,  184 
Colombe,  Jean,  37,  40 


GENERAL  INDEX 


525 


Coninck,  John  de,  313 
Coninxloo,  Gillis  III  van,  359 

— John  van,  and  othei'  members  of  the 
family,  430 

Copies  of  type-pictures,  Flemish  habit  of 
multiplying,  132 
Corneille  de  Lyon,  325,  326 
Cornells,  Albert,  300 

Cornells,  son  of  Cornells  Engebrechtsen, 
456 

— son  of  Jacob  of  Oostsanen,  456 
Cornelisz  of  Oostsanen,  Jacob,  435,  439, 

450,  454,  456-63 

Coter,  Colin  de,  118,  256,  261-6,  420 
Court,  the.  its  influence  on  art,  102 
Court  of  Burgundy,  manners  at  the,  74  ff. 
Court-painters,  83,  101 
Courtesans  of  Antwerp  in  pictures,  268 
Crane  of  Bruges,  the  town,  231,  310 
Crisp,  Sir  Frank,  his  mediajval  gardens, 
206,  207,  209 

Croy,  Philip  de,  portrait  by  Roger,  147 
Crucifixions,  Late  Gothic,  213 
Cyriacus  of  Ancona,  mentions  Roger’s 
pictures,  143 

Daret,  Jacques,  119,  120,  124-8 
David  of  Oudewater,  Gerard,  251,  277-91 
(Chap.  XX),  301,  364,  403,  448 
Decadence  of  Gothic  art,  141 
Delft,  woodcuts  printed  at,  210 

— as  an  art  centre,  210,  435 

Donne,  Sir  Jolm,  his  triptych  by  Memling, 
222,  229 
Dorsers,  79 
Dressers,  79 

Duerstede  Castle,  362,  371 
Diirer,  Albrecht : in  the  Netherlands,  65, 
95,  97,  292,  294,  320,  334,  348,  368,  392, 
394,  406,  422,  430,  468  ; drawings  by,  117, 
292,  294,  348,  353,  367,  423,  468  ; in- 
fluenced by  Q.  Massys,  321  ; his  prints 
copied,  330,  352,  356,  364,  366,  371, 
389,  451,  459,  468,  473,  476,  478,  481, 
482 

Dutch  art,  its  origin,  161 

E.  S.,  engraver,  117,  145 
Edzard  I,  Duke  of  East  Friesland,  his 
portrait,  461 
Eeckele,  Jan  van,  297 
Elburcht,  Hans  van  der,  297,  354 
Engebreehtsen,  Cornelis,  448-56,  472 
England:  Joos  van  Cleve  in,  401,  408; 

Sotte  Cleve  in,  414,  416-18 
Erasmus,  315,  319-21,  375,  446  ; portrait- 
medal  by  Q.  Massys,  320 

35 


Estampes,  Robinet  d’,  43 
Este,  Lionello  d’,  his  portrait  by  Roger, 
143,  157,  note 

Estelin  of  Cambrai,  Michel,  149 
Everen,  Giles  van,  313,  386 
Eyck,  Hubert  van,  42-63  (Chap.  V),  104-6, 
112 

— John  van,  49,  50,  52,  53,  57-9,  64-73 
(Chap.  VI),  83,  103,  120 

— Margaret,  wife  of  John  van,  50,  66-8 

Fabriano,  Gentile  da,  38,  142 
Facius  mentions  Roger,  142 
Feather  of  peacock  or  ostrich  as  emblem  of 
St.  Barbara,  460 

Fernagant,  John,  and  wife,  portraits  by 
Peter  Pourbus,  310 
Ferrara,  Roger  at,  143 
Fillastre,  Abbot  William,  of  St.  Bertin’s, 
154,  223 

Flemish  Milanese  artists,  318,  408,  409 
Floris,  Frans,  379 
Forli,  Melozzo  da,  197 
France ; Joos  van  Cleve  in,  401, 407  ; Peter 
Bruegel’s  journey  through,  488 
Francesca,  Piero  della,  195,  197 
Francis  I,  King  of  France,  408,  412 
Frankenthal,  Gillis  van  Coninxloo  at,  359 
Frankert,  Hans,  a friend  of  Peter  Bruegel, 
493 

Froiment,  Lusent,  portrait  of,  by  Roger, 
148 

Fumes,  Alienor  Vicomtesse  de,  her  etiquette 
book,  76 

Gaddi,  Taddeo,  37 

Gardens  in  picture  backgrounds  by  Bouts 
and  others,  205-9,  293 
Gassel,  Lucas,  355,  409 
Geeraerts,  Marc,  424 

Geertgen  van  Sint  Jans,  211,  214-19,  276, 
290,  317,  397,  438,  448 
Geneva,  east  end  of  the  Lake  of,  landscape 
by  Peter  Bruegel,  502 
Ghent : the  home  of  H.  v.  d.  Goes,  174  ; 
Justus  of  Ghent  at,  174,  193  ; school  of 
painting,  188  ; artists,  188  ff. 

Gheyn,  Jacob  de  (engraver),  361 
Ghi.stelles  near  Bruges,  i)olyptych  from, 
253 

Gillis,  Peter,  315,  319,  321 
Goes,  Hugo  V.  d.,  172,  173-92  (Chap. 
XHI),  19.3-5,  493 

Golden  Fleece,  foundation  of  the  Order  of 
the,  66,  246 

Gossaert,  Jan,  sec  Mabuse 
Gossart,  Nicasius  (architect),  365 


6^6  GENERAL  INDEX 


Grassi,  Giovannino  de’,  his  sketchbooks, 
39 

Great  St.  Bernard  Pass,  possibly  crossed 
by  Peter  Bruegel,  488-9 
Grimston,  Edward,  portrait  by  P.  Christus, 
108 

Gros,  Jean  de,  portrait  of,  by  Roger,  148 
Guanto,  Giusto  da,  see  Justus  of  Ghent 
Guicciardini,  references  to  Flemish  artists, 
145,  174,  222,  227,  357,  407 
Guild  chapels  and  services,  98 
Guild-halls,  88 

Guild-system,  its  effect  on  art,  99,  151 
Guilds  of  Painters,  85-100  (Chap.  VIII) ; 
of  Rhetoricians,  89 


Haarlem  : Dirk  Bouts  born  at,  159  ; 

garden  paintings  of  the  early  school, 
209  ; woodcuts  printed  at,  211,  note  ; 
home  of  Geertgen,  214  ; Gerard  David 
at,  277  ; Jan  Joest  at,  397  ; Barthel 
Bruyn  probably  born  at,  399  ; the 
cradle  of  Dutch  painting,  432  ; Jan 
Mostaert  at,  437  ; works  of  art  destroyed 
at,  in  1576,  442 

Haemstede,  votive  picture  of  Rues  van,  275 
Hagenau,  Hancelin  de,  40 
Hague,  John  van  Eyck  working  at  the, 
59,  160 

Hameel,  Alart  du  (engraver),  345 
Hansken,  Cleen,  297 
— Klein,  297 

Hemessen,  John  Sanders  van,  313 
Henry  VHI,  King  of  England,  333,  370, 
374,  408,  411 
Heretic  artists,  330,  359 
Herlam,  Simon  van,  313 
Hertogenbosch  (Bois-le-Duc),  334 
Hesdin,  an  art  centre,  22 
Hesdin,  Jacquemart  de,  21-6 
Hey  den,  Anthony  van  der,  313 
Hinckaert,  Philip,  of  Tervueren,  diptych 
of  the  school  of  Roger,  156 
Holbein  the  Elder,  drawing  in  Basle 
Museum  after  H.  v.  d.  Goes,  185 
Holbein  the  Younger,  320,  374 
Holman,  Abbot  Robert,  of  the  Dunes,  308 
Holy  Face,  the,  supposed  likeness  of  Christ, 
235 

Hondt,  Christian  de.  Abbot  of  the  Dunes, 
his  diptych,  70,  254 

Horenbant  family,  miniaturists  of  Ghent, 
188,  288 

Hornes  memorial  Madonna,  152 
Hugo  Jacobsz,  father  of  Lucas  van 
Leyden,  433,  448,  467 


Hust,  Jean,  33 

Huy,  Jean  Pepin  de,  16,  18 

— Renier  de  (sculptor),  15 
Huys,  Frans  (engraver),  489 

— Peter,  346 

Isabella  of  Austria,  wife  of  Christian  II 
of  Denmark,  370,  374,  427,  430 
Isenbrant,  Adrian,  300-5 
Italian  art,  influence  on  Northern  artists, 
37,  38,  60,  115,  142,  143,  196,  306,  318, 
382,  391,  408 

Italy  : Roger’s  visit  to,  142  ; visit  of  Quentin 
Massys  to  (?),  319,  320  ; visit  of  Jan 
Massys  to,  330,  331  ; visit  of  Mabuse  to, 
364  ; Lambert  Lombard’s  visit  to,  379  ; 
Joos  van  Cleve  in,  401,  407 ; Peter 
Bruegel’s  visit  to,  488 

Jacob  of  Oostsanen,  435,  439,  450,  454, 
456-63 

Jacobszoon,  Dirk,  son  of  Jacob  of  Oost- 
sanen, 456 

James  HI,  King  of  Scotland,  178 
Jerusalem  in  picture  by  H.  van  Eyck,  61 
Joest,  Jan,  397 

John,  King  of  France,  16,  19  ; his  effigy, 
27 

John  II,  King  of  Castile,  paintings  for,  158 

Journeymen,  92 

Julius  II,  Poiie,  364,  365 

Justus  of  Ghent,  174,  193-200  (Chap.  XIV) 

Key,  William,  316,  379 

Laethem,  Jacob  van,  268,  note 
Lampsonius  on  Q.  Massys,  311  ; on  Ma- 
thias Cock,  357  ; on  Gillis  v.  Coninxloo, 
359  ; pupil  of  Lambert  Lombard,  379  ; 
on  the  Cleves,  413 

Landscape-art  : beginnings  of,  in  the 

Heures  de  Chantilly,  38,  44 ; in  the 
Heures  de  Turin,  44  ff.,  51  note,  52  ; 
developed  by  Dirk  Bouts  and  his 
followers,  162,  170,  183,  204,  217  ; of 
G.  David,  283  ; backgrounds  painted 
by  specialists,  289,  296,  349,  351,  360, 
409,  410  ; Q.  Massys’  innovations  in, 
321  ; Bosch’s  innovations  in,  339  ff. ; 
developed  by  Peter  Bruegel,  357,  488, 
496,  497,  500-3,  505 

Landscapes : important  examples  of,  217, 
296,  300,  352,  354,  442,  501  ; by  Patinir 
and  his  followers,  349-61 
I Lannoy,  Baldwin  de,  67,  68 


GENERAL  INDEX 


527 


Lathem,  Lieven  van,  313 
Leclercq,  Abbot  Robert,  of  the  Dunes,  his 
diptych,  254 

Leonardo  da  Vinei,  318,  344,  408 
Leyden : birthplaee  of  Geertgen,  214  ; 

as  an  art  centre,  432,  448  ; home  of 
Cornelis  Engebrechtsen,  448  ; Guild  of 
Arquebusiers,  448,  467  ; home  of  Lucas 
van  Lcj'den,  464  ff. 

Leyden,  Lueas  van,  372,  394,  456,  464-85 
(Chap.  XXXI) 

Leyden  School,  Early,  216 
Liedwy,  legend  of,  273 
Liege,  Lambert  Lombard’s  sehool  at,  379 
Lierre,  Goswin  van  der  Weyden  working 
for,  272 

Lille,  J . van  Eyek  at,  66 
Limbourg,  Pol.  Jehannequin  and  Herman 
de,  36-11,  43,  44,  46,  47 
Lombard,  Lambert,  378,  379,  392 
Lombard  of  Mons,  James,  313 
Lomme  of  Tournay,  Janin,  31,  note 
London,  St.  Paul’s,  view  of,  60 
Louvain : Dirk  Bouts  settled  at,  160,  164  ; 
Roger’s  work  for,  164  ; Quentin  Massys, 
born  and  educated  at,  312 
Lucas,  son  of  Cornelis  Engebreehtsen,  456 
Lyons  in  the  Van  Eyek  Rolin  Madonna,  64 

Maastrieht,  111 

Mabuse,  Jan  de,  306,  330,  331,  362-78 
(Chap.  XXV),  422,  468,  483,  484 
Maelbeke,  Nieholas  van,  his  triptyeh  by 
J.  van  Eyek,  71 
Maisoneelle,  Jean  de,  149 
Malouel,  Jean,  27,  33,  36,  83 
Mandijn,  Jan,  346 

Mannerism  affeeting  the  Antwerp  and  other 
sehools,  304,  380-96  (Chap.  XXVI),  448, 
452,  457 

Mannerist  painters  of  Antwerp,  276 
^Manners  at  Court,  74-84  (Chap.  VII) 
INIanuel,  King  of  Portugal,  267 
Mareantonio  Raimondi  (engraver),  373, 
429,  484 

^larehe,  “ Chevalier  delibere  ” by  Olivier 
de  la,  273 

^largaret  of  Austria,  Regent  of  Nether- 
lands, 372,  420,  422,  424,  425,  428,  437 
Marienpoel  Nunnery,  pietures  for,  449, 
450,  453 

Marmion,  Simon,  122,  224,  292 
Marville,  Jean  de,  30 
Mary,  Queen  of  England,  414,  418 
Massys,  Cornelis,  son  of  Quentin,  332,  355 

— John  (blaeksmith),  312 

— John  (?  brother  of  Quentin),  315 


Massys,  John,  son  of  Quentin,  327,  330 
— Quentin,  272,  288,  312-29  (Chap.  XXII), 
403,  415 

Master  of  : Afflighem,  267  ; Alkmaar,  274, 
433,  448,  457  ; Cappenburg,  456  ; the 
death  of  Mary,  see  .loos  van  Cleve  ; the 
death  of  Mary  (engraver),  117  ; Fle- 
malle,  see  R.  Campin  ; Frankfurt,  383, 
400,  404  ; the  Half-lengths,  305  ; the 
Holy  Blood,  296,  note  ; Hoogstraten, 
383  ; the  Last  Suppers,  390-2,  431  ; 
Linnieh,  389  ; the  Magdalen  Legend, 
1 52,  253,  266,  402  ; the  Mansi  Mag- 
dalen, 298,  329,  330  ; the  Morrison  Trip- 
tych, 216,  317;  Moulins,  122,  187;  the 
drsoy  Altar-piece,  266  ; the  Parrot,  1 52, 
153  ; the  Playing  Cards  (engraver),  286  ; 
the  St.  Annes  (Dutch),  221,  398  ; 
St.  Berlin’s  (by  some  called  Simon 
Marmion),  122,  223  ; St.  Giles,  154, 190  ; 
St.  Hubert,  153  ; the  Amsterdam  St. 
Lucia,  220,  458  ; the  Bruges  St.  Lucia, 
250 ; St.  Severin,  456  ; St.  Ursula,  199, 
208,  247-50  ; the  Scrolls  (engraver), 
268  ; the  Sibyl  ( = Ouwater  ?),  202,  414  ; 
the  Solomons,  259  ; the  Turin  Cruci- 
fixion (Dutch),  436  ; the  Virgo  inter 
Virgines  of  Delft,  211,  335  ; Zwolle  (en- 
graver), 286  ; 1466  (engraver),  121 ; 

1518,  389 

Mauberge,  birthplace  of  Mabuse,  362 
Maximilian,  Emperor,  184,  251,  401,  410, 
478 

Medals,  Italian,  and  by  Quentin  Massys, 
320 

Medici  family,  members  of  the,  142,  228 
Mehun-sur-Yevre,  38 
IMeire,  Gerard  van  der,  188,  189 
Memling,  Hans,  222-45  (Chap.  XVII) 
IMessina,  Straits  of,  drawn  by  Peter  Bruegel, 
496 

Meyt,  Conrad  (sculptor),  425 
IMichiel,  Mareantonio,  mentions  Flemish 
pictures,  204,  242  note,  325,  365 
Middelburg : Mabuse  resident  at,  365, 

374 ; Mabuse’s  altar-piece  visited  by 
Diirer,  368 

Milan  Cathedral,  Coene’s  work  for,  40 
Miniaturists,  Bruges  Guild  of,  287 
Miraculous  pietures  of  the  Virgin  at  Rome, 
Cambrai,  and  in  Zeeland,  105,  106,  298, 
329 

Miraflores  Convent,  picture  by  Roger  once 
in,  140 

Molenbeek-St.  Jean,  madmen  cured  at,  499 
Momlingen,  possible  birthplace  of  Memling, 
1 222 


528 


GENERAL  INDEX 


Mons,  art  at,  293 
Mont  St.  Michel,  39 
Mor,  Anthony,  414,  416,  417 
More,  Sir  Thomas,  327 
Moreel  (Morelli),  William,  and  wife,  por- 
traits by  Memling,  240 
Mostaert,  Jan,  301,  399,  428,  436-47 
Mystics  and  their  effect  upon  art,  8-14 


Naples  Bay  drawn  by  Peter  Bruegel,  489 
Narbonne,  painter  of  the  Parement  de, 
20,  42 

Nassau,  Henry  III,  Count  of,  427 
Navarre,  Jeanne  de  France,  Queen  of, 
her  Book  of  Hours,  18 
Neghker,  Jost  de  (woodcutter),  475 
Niexiwenhoven,  Martin  van,  diptych  by 
Memling  for,  236 
Nottingham  Alablasterers,  440 
Nudes  in  pictures  of  the  Fontainebleau 
School,  331 


Olivarez,  portrait  of  Don  Pedro  Guzman, 
Count  of,  311 

Oostsanen,  Jacob  van,  see  Cornelisz 
Orleans,  Girart  d’,  19,  20 

— Jean  d’,  20 

Orley,  Bernard  van,  378,  391,  419-31 
(Chap.  XXVHI),  437 

— Valentin  van,  419 

Oudewater,  birthplace  of  G.  David,  277 
Ouwater,  Albert  Simonsz  van,  155,  201  ff., 
214,  277 

Overbeke,  Adrian  van,  392 


Painter,  office  of  Court,  83,  101 
Paradise  pictures,  12,  56 
Paris,  Hotel  de  Nesle,  38 
Pasture,  Henry  de  la  (sculptor),  130 

— Rogelet  de  la,  see  Weyden,  Roger  van 
der 

Patinir,  Henrv,  348,  355 

— Joachim  de,  289,  321,  348-54,  404,  410 
Peasants,  studies  of,  182 

Pellezuoli,  Donato  Boni,  of  Bergamo 
(architect),  489 
Perspective,  progress  in,  72 
Philibert  of  Savoy,  443 
Philip  II,  King  of  Spain,  345,  414,  417 
Pilgrimages  to  Jerusalem,  61 
Pinturicchio,  235 
Pisanello,  336 

Poortier,  Robert,  bequeaths  a picture  by 
H.  van  Eyck,  106 


Portinari,  Benedetto,  241 
— Thomas,  and  his  wife,  182,  228,  232 
note,  238 

Portrait-painting,  methods  of,  in  fifteenth 
and  sixteenth  centuries,  133,  166 
Portugal,  Isabella  of,  wife  of  Philip  the 
Good,  66,  76 

Portugal  visited  by  J.  van  Eyck,  66 
Pourbus,  Peter,  309 
Prindale,  33 

Printing  offices  in  fifteenth  century  in 
Holland,  433 
Provost,  John,  292-7 

Raphael,  422,  423 

Reymerswale,  Marinus  van,  294,  325-7 
Richard  II,  portrait  in  Westminster  Abbey, 
23,  26 

Robert,  Abbot  .Tohn,  of  Cambrai,  triptych 
painted  for  him  in  the  studio  of  Roger, 
147 

Rolin,  Chancellor,  60,  64,  146,  187 
Romanesque  architecture  in  the  Van  Eyck 
pictures,  64 

Roode  Clooster,  Roodendaal,  Hugo  v.  d. 
Goes  in  the,  181,  184 

Rubens,  P.  P.,  223,  324,  361,  418,  488,  505 
Ruistre,  Nicholas  le,  painting  for  him  by 
Roger,  137 

Rycke,  Daniel  de,  177 
Ryckere,  Bernard  de,  326 
Rycx,  Lambert,  379 

St.  Denis,  Mass  in,  154,  190 
St.  Dymphna  and  her  legend,  272 
St.  Eloy’s  shop,  109 
Saint  Gilles,  view  of,  191 
St.  Gothard  Pass,  crossed  by  Peter  Bruegel, 
488-9 

St.  Joseph  making  mouse-traps,  118,  263 
Salaino,  318 

Salamanca,  the  Virgin  of,  by  R.  Campin, 
114-17 

Santi,  Giovanni,  145,  197 
Savery,  Jacus  and  Roland,  361 
Schiedam,  printing  at,  273 
Schongauer,  Martin,  145,  180,  286,  302,  364 
Scorel,  372,  400,  435,  462 
Selim,  son  of  Mahommed  II,  his  likeness  by 
Memling  and  by  Pinturicchio,  235 
Sforza  family  triptych,  107,  144,  227 
Skating-rinks  in  the  Rhone  Valley  in  1567, 
502 

Sluter,  Claas,  27,  30-4 
Snel,  John,  313 

Snoij  family,  triptych  painted  for,  by  Dirk 
Bouts,  170 


GENERAL  INDEX 


529 


Solario,  Andrea,  319,  440 
Spain,  importation  of  pictures  from  the 
Netherlands  into,  114,  297,  305 
Spinelli,  Niccolo  di  Forzore,  called  Niccolo 
Fiorentino,  238 
Stainer,  Imbert,  40 
Steclilin  brothers,  goldsmiths,  223 
Steenken,  Herman,  pictures  for,  59,  64,  105 
Strozzi,  Niccolo,  portrait  of,  by  Memling, 
238 

Suytborg  Castle,  365,  371 

Sweden : Lambert  Rycx  working  in,  379  ; 

Coninxloo  working  in,  430 
Symbolism  in  pictures,  138 

Tani,  Angelo,  and  wife,  altar-piece  painted 
for,  by  Memling,  228 

Tapestries  : after  II.  v.  d.  Goes  (?),  177  ; 

designed  by  B.  van  Orley,  428 
Tempera  paintings  on  linen,  163,  177,  179, 
323,  436,  481,  483,  494 
Terlinck,  Aerd,  313 

Teylingen,  A.  van,  his  triptych  and  por- 
traits by  J.  van  Oostsanen,  459,  461 
Thiennes  family’s  Protestant  meeting,  299 
Thonis,  Jacob,  313 
Titian,  414,  417 

Tivoli  Falls,  drawn  by  Peter  Bruegel,  488 
Tongerloo  Abbey  and  Goswin  van  der 
Weyden,  272 

Tournay:  sculptors,  91,  112,  130;  home  of 
Robert  Campin,  111  ; view  in,  118  ; 
Roger  van  der  Weyden  at,  119,  129,  130  ; 
visited  by  John  van  Eyck,  120  ; home  of 
J.  Daret,  126 
Town-halls,  87 

Trompes,  John  des,  triptych  by  G.  David 
for,  283 

Urbino,  Federigo  di  Montefeltro,  Duke  of, 
195  ff. 

— Justus  of  Ghent  settled  at,  194 
Ursula,  shrine  of  St.,  233 


Utrecht,  Mabuse  resident  at,  371 
Uzun  Hasan,  Turkoman  of  the  White 
Sheep, 195 

Valenciennes,  St.  Bertin’s  shrine  made  at, 
223 

Valkenborch,  Lucas  van,  359 
Vasari  on  Mabuse,  378 
Veenlant  of  Schiedam,  portrait  by  Geertgen, 
218 

Veere,  landing  of  the  Duke  of  Bavaria  near, 
45 

Vellert,  Dirk,  392-6 
Vereycke,  Hans,  297 

Villeneuve,  vicAV  of,  by  Peter  Bruegel,  502 
Vincennes,  Chateau  de,  39 
Visch,  Jean  de,  bequeaths  a picture  by 
Hubert  van  Eyck,  59 

Vrelant,  William,  miniaturist,  picture  by 
Memling  painted  for,  232 
Vyt,  Jodoc,  53,  62 

Walloon  art,  129,  141 

Wassenaer,  John  van,  portrait  by  Mostaert, 
444 

Wassenhove,  Joos  van,  see  Justus  of  Ghent 
Werl,  triptych  by  R.  Campin  painted  for 
Heinrich  von,  122 
Werve,  Claus  de,  31,  33 
Weyden,  Goswin  van  der,  150,  271-6,  313 
— Roger  van  der,  118-20,  128-57  (Chap, 
XI) 

Winter  sport  in  the  Alps  in  1567,  502 
Woodcuts  : by  Jacob  van  Oostsanen,  457, 
462  ; by  Lucas  van  Leyden,  467,  475 
Wueluwe,  Henry  and  John  van,  313 
Wydoot,  Abbot  Antonins,  of  the  Dunes, 
308 

Zelle,  Dr.  George  van,  426 

Zeno,  Caterino,  Venetian  Envoy,  195 

Zwyn,  silting  up  of  the,  246,  315 


PRINTED  BT 

HAZELL,  WATSON  AND  VINEY,  LD., 
LONDON  AND  AYLESBURY, 
ENGLAND, 


‘ 01  " 7 

^ ■ ' '7 

28  99673 


f 


J 


V, 


i 


■ 


GETTY  CENTER  LIBRARY  MAIN 

NO  631  C56  WS 

c.  1 Con»ay.  Killian  Mart 

The  Van  Eydcs  and  Bielr  folloKers. 


3 3125  00332  7281 


